Your definition of "virtue signaling" is wrong

[PawesomeJames]

Virtue signaling isn't "showing positive representation," it's pretending to show positive representation and/or showing only one form of positive representation for people to like you not because you're a good person, but because you want only positive attention, i.e.:

1. LeFou in the 2017 Beauty and the Beast live-action remake being gay, despite him being the villainous sidekick and stereotypically gay and his name literally translating to "The Fool," which is homophobic and insulting to the late composer (of the 1991 original animated version) Howard Ashman, who was gay and died of AIDS, and is an example of Disney and the two white cis male writers who wrote the remake pretending to be LGBTQ+ representative in their virtue signaling
2. Dumbledore being gay according to Lady Moldemort, which is the only representation she has shown in the Wizarding World franchise, and that's not good because there needs to be a variety of LGBTQ+ representation, but Moldemort's a F.A.R.T. (Feminism-Appropriating Reactionary Transphobe)

If you actually did research and not rely on right-wingers' disinformation of the definition of virtue signaling, you'd know this.

[forcedtosignup]

me when i forget to take my meds and schizo-post on github issues 🥳

[PawesomeJames]

me when i forget to take my meds and schizo-post on github issues 🥳

Sure, Jan.

[Athari]

@PawesomeJames

Funny that you define virtue signaling so narrowly that only homophobic stereotypes and JK Rowling fit your definition. Virtue signaling is slapping a rainbow sticker on your forehead and screaming "BLM!!!" on twitter — you farm support from the performance, while doing nothing else. LeFou and the like are just homophobic stereotypes, inserting which 5 times per episode was the norm in the 90s, you just got too sensitive.

BLM was a failure of epic proportions. So much energy, but only zero to negative results. "Defund the police" and "ACAB" became MAGA's favorite attack ad forever. Whatever good was in BLM, like "8 Can't Wait", got buried under dumb chants that aren't policy and aren't reform — I wonder how many self-proclaimed leftists have even heard about those 8. Police budgets went up, but who even cares now that Trump won — thanks to toxic leftists, among other things.

FA's "BLM" item menu is a clear case of virtue signaling. A link to a page with many paragraphs of pointless text nobody on the right will ever read. The fact that a single minority gets a permanent menu item, while nobody cares about all other marginalized groups is anti-liberal, there's no equality in that.

Intersectionality became a "mute" button. The theory by itself makes sense, but its proponents are silencing anyone with fewer minority labels than them. Just look at your own behavior — you instantly assume I'm a rightoid, or at least a victim of right-wing propaganda, just because I don't agree with you on a single practice. Do I have to flex my minority labels to have the right for speech?

Go back with your FARTs, TERFs and LGBTQQIP2SAA and other Tumblr inventions back to your Twitter and BlueSky and debate someone else. LGBT can't get rid of bi erasure in its own ranks for decades, and somehow, I'm supposed to read definitions of terminally online acronyms.

It's perfectly clear that you've never listened to a single word of criticism from your own side. Your message is nothing but virtue signaling, frankly. Nobody is hurt by 50 users of a userstyle having an option to hide a menu item, yet here you are, explaining to me how I'm an enemy of all that's good.

[PawesomeJames]

You:

use "leftist" as an insult (which it's not)

Also you:

said "you instantly assume I'm a rightoid, or at least a victim of right-wing propaganda, just because I don't agree with you on a single practice. Do I have to flex my minority labels to have the right for speech?"

Sorry, bud. You lost me at this point, you hypocrite.

[Athari]

OK, you lefter-than-thou asshole.

I prefer to avoid using a one-dimensional left-right scale when anti-liberal movements like MAGA or ML are involved, because you end up with the horseshoe issue.

You:

Whatever good was in BLM, like "8 Can't Wait", got buried under dumb chants that aren't policy and aren't reform — I wonder how many self-proclaimed leftists have even heard about those 8. Police budgets went up, but who even cares now that Trump won — thanks to toxic leftists, among other things.

Also you:

you instantly assume I'm a rightoid, or at least a victim of right-wing propaganda, just because I don't agree with you on a single practice. Do I have to flex my minority labels to have the right for speech?`

Sorry, bud. You lost me at this point, you hypocrite.

Okay, so someone wishing that a movement of BLM magnitude could achieve a little more than an infinite supply of talking points for MAGA, is inherently evil? What is your point exactly? You may want to clearly state your position instead of overquoting.

👎1 😄1

Truly a solid argument.

I can see why I "lost" you — the text is too long for you to comprehend in full.

P.S. You may want to read about Markdown syntax which is used for formatting messages on GitHub. For quoting, you should use > text, not `text`. The latter is typically used for code.

[PawesomeJames]

You use the term "leftist" as an insult like right-wingers yet you claim to not be right-wing. Hmm... you sound like a centrist, and centrists are neo-conservatives who claim to support neither left-wingers nor right-wingers and yet are Nazis in denial. ...either that, or you're a right-winger in denial.

[Athari]

You use the term "leftist" as an insult like right-wingers yet you claim to not be right-wing.

Since you're suffering from reading comprehension issues, let me explain it to you in simpler words. I've used the word "leftist" two times, both times with qualifiers:

1. I wonder how many self-proclaimed leftists have even heard about those 8 [Can't Wait]

   This sentence means: many people (not all) who self-identify as leftists (say they're leftists), don't know the theory (books) or the practice (policies, reforms, activism) of the leftist movements and are only attracted by twitter activism (sending angry tweets), dumb chants (like ACAB) and other superficial noise (like getting angry about an option in a userstyle). Such people in particular (not all leftists) are an embarrassment to the leftist movements (true members of the movement should be ashamed of such people within their ranks).

2. who even cares now that Trump won — thanks to toxic leftists, among other things

   This sentence means: some people (not all) in the leftist movements (the proportion depends on the movement) are toxic (are negative, share negativity, manipulate and gaslight). In particular, those who were against voting for Kamala Harris (who would have obviously been a superior president) for nonsensical reasons (like "she supports genocide").

To be clear, I haven't stated my opinion on any leftist movements in particular. (Except for Marxist-Leninists, but now I doubt you could identify this in the text.)

Hmm... you sound like a centrist, and centrists are neo-conservatives who claim to support neither left-wingers nor right-wingers and yet are Nazis in denial.

So, every centrist is a right-winger, and every right-winger is a Nazi. Does it... um... sound correct to you? Nothing seems... off?

The enlightened centrists you're describing at the start of your sentence (before you go off rails) take the position exactly in between the current manifestations of the left and right parties and equate the harm done by both parties ("both parties are equally bad") at best, or fully support every Trump's policy at worst (usually in a form like, "I don't support Trump, buuut all his policies are great"). Can you provide a quote of me bothsidesing? Or maybe supporting any of Trump's policies?

P.S. Editing a message 11 times, including 6 times where you completely change your position, is bad manners — especially after you've received a reply.

[PawesomeJames]

This sentence means: some people (not all) in the leftist movements (the proportion depends on the movement) are toxic (are negative, share negativity, manipulate and gaslight).

You said "toxic leftists" as if all leftists are toxic. Don't downplay what you said.

In particular, those who were against voting for Kamala Harris (who would have obviously been a superior president) for nonsensical reasons (like "she supports genocide").

Well, she supports Israel, which was originally Palestine before the Israelis took over (and Palestine was originally Israel before the Palestinians fled to there), but is the lesser of the two evils (and better option) from the 2024 US Presidential race, and Netanyahu's Israeli soldiers are genocidal war criminals. Israel has a long history with supporting South African white supremacist apartheid, and a vast majority of Zionists around the world are anti-Semites and white supremacists. Zionism boils down to "anyone who is Jewish should move back to Israel, regardless of whether they're Israeli in origin or not," which is anti-Semitic and white supremacist colonialism (the claim that "anyone who's not white or Christian should move back to their countries, regardless of whether they came from them or not") in origin, contrary to what CAJE (Colonialism-Appropriating Jewish Extremist, an acronym I came up with) groups like the ADL and IRA will have you believe.

[Athari]

You said "toxic leftists" as if all leftists are toxic. Don't downplay what you said.

I don't think you understand how the English language works. If I say, "bad people do bad deeds", does it imply that "all people are bad" and "all deeds are bad"?

Well, she supports Israel

I have no doubts you can retell the one-sided story of Israel when woken at night, where everybody you disagree with is a Nazi, but that's irrelevant. The key question is, was it a good or bad idea to not support Kamala Harris during the presidential race?

[PawesomeJames]

Go back with your FARTs, TERFs and LGBTQQIP2SAA and other Tumblr inventions back to your Twitter and BlueSky and debate someone else.

OK, so you're an anti-LGBTQIA+ bigot. Got it.

So, every centrist is a right-winger, and every right-winger is a Nazi.

I never said that. Stop putting words in my mouth.

Can you provide a quote of me bothsidesing?

You're doing exactly that, you hypocrite. You're attacking both "virtue-signaling" (by your definition) left-wingers and right-wingers despite you acting right-wing.

the one-sided story of Israel when woken at night, where everybody you disagree with is a Nazi

It's not one-sided. Jewish Zionists are Jewish-in-name-only. Both Democrats and Republicans who are Zionist sympathizers (but not all of them are) support Israel. Also, I never said "everybody I disagree with is a Nazi." Again, stop putting words in my mouth.

The key question is, was it a good or bad idea to not support Kamala Harris during the presidential race?

A good idea, despite that fault of hers.

Now please kindly fuck off.

[Athari]

OK, so you're an anti-LGBTQIA+ bigot. Got it.

No, I'm against coming up with acronyms which are understood by 50 people on twitter. This does include all variations of "LGBT" with more than 5 letters in it.

I never said that. Stop putting words in my mouth.

Let me quote you:

centrists are neo-conservatives who claim to support neither left-wingers nor right-wingers and yet are Nazis in denial

This can be written formally as:

$$ \forall x\Bigl(\mathrm{ℂentrist}(x)\rightarrow \bigl(\mathrm{ℕeoCon}(x)\wedge \neg\mathrm{𝕃eftSupport}(x)\wedge \neg\mathrm{ℝightSupport}(x)\wedge \mathrm{naℤi}(x)\bigr)\Bigr) $$

Assuming:

$$ \forall x\bigl(\mathrm{ℕeoCon}(x)\rightarrow \mathrm{ℝightWing}(x)\bigr) $$

these statements logically follow:

$$ \forall x\bigl(\mathrm{ℂentrist}(x)\rightarrow \mathrm{ℝightWing}(x)\bigr) $$ $$ \forall x\bigl(\mathrm{ℂentrist}(x)\rightarrow \mathrm{naℤi}(x)\bigr) $$

If there's an alternative way to interpret your statement, please let me know.

You're attacking both "virtue-signaling" (by your definition) left-wingers and right-wingers despite you acting right-wing.

If you disagree with my definition of virtue signaling, please consult with a dictionary.

You seem to be struggling with logic. If somebody is right-wing, they do criticize left-wing — this is a true statement. However, the converse ("if somebody criticizes left-wing, they're right-wing") and the inverse ("if somebody isn't right-wing, they don't criticize left-wing") are generally false. Only the contraposition ("if somebody doesn't criticize left-wing, they aren't right-wing") is true.

So far, your only proof of me being right-wing seems to be the fact that I dare to criticize terminally online radical leftists inhabiting twitter, while you consistently ignore the fact that I support left-wing politicians and policies.

Also, I never said "everybody I disagree with is a Nazi." Again, stop putting words in my mouth.

This is an oversimplification of your position indeed. You seem to randomly rotate between people disagreeing with you being: Nazis, white supremacists, neo-cons, colonialists etc. I haven't figured out the pattern yet, and I'm not sure I will, as your understanding of the terms is likely as shallow as your understanding of Zionism.

A good idea, despite that fault of hers.

You seem to have missed a negation in my statement... Not that it matters, but your support for Harris is my last hope that there's some sanity below all your illiteracy and anger.