• finitebanjo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    7 hours ago

    I never understood that phrase. If you admit there is virtue to your opponents actions isn’t that just certifying you are wrong regardless of the opponents intentions?

    • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      No, it’s saying they’re doing something mostly superficial and useless because they think it will make people see them as virtuous, where they wouldn’t have done it if it wasn’t a highly visible act, not that the actions are actually virtuous. So like someone volunteers for one day for some charitable cause, but spends the whole time taking selfies and not actually helping much.

      That said I’m not sure what the logic is that quitting facebook counts as this

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        5 hours ago

        Alright but the highly superficial act is seen as virtuous. The act we oppose when we use this phrase. That act. It is virtuous. Therefor we in this hypothetical stand against virtue and goodness.

        • PumaStoleMyBluff@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          2 hours ago

          It generally means that we don’t believe they’d be taking that action if there weren’t a camera rolling or trending hashtag to follow. It’s not criticizing the actual action, but the context around the action.