Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The inescapable rise of moral superiority

thewalrus.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 49 posts

Re: The inescapable rise of moral superiority

#31

Post by rdtsc »

> we often raise issues of justice and equity not to advance meaningful social causes but to generate positive attention for ourselves by denigrating others.

It's hard to differentiate between someone pretending to be morally outraged or offended and someone who genuinely is. If one really likes to get attention, and light "fires" around them, there is no real downside to pretending to be deeply offended or morally outraged. Who is going to prove it wrong? But look at all excitement and fireworks it can cause.

Re: The inescapable rise of moral superiority

#32

Post by BHSPitMonkey »

worrycue wrote: post #26
im3w1l wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Social change doesn’t come from posting I have to disagree with this. Change happens because people want change. And they want change because they have been convinced of its benefits. Posting plays a role here.

Depends on the kind of posting IMHO. Contributing to a rational civil discussion? Maybe. Flaming, downvoting, and “collectively bullying” someone with a different opinion to enforce an echo chamber? Not so much. The latter just drives everyone who disagrees away so the likeminded can reinforce their beliefs, pat each other on the back, and feel good about themselves.

Through posting alone, the right-wing conspiracy movement (which QAnon is one extension of) has expanded from relative obscurity into a fairly mainstream base with millions of members worldwide over the course of only about 5 years, and has already captured in just the U.S. a number of congressional seats and at least one SCOTUS judge by the looks of it. The format has a rather persuasive appeal that (in my opinion) seems to be more effective at advancing intellectually dishonest positions and worldviews.

Re: The inescapable rise of moral superiority

#33

Post by abeppu »

So if the uptake is "refrain from (non-productive) virtue signalling, especially where that takes the form of criticism or indignation directed at someone else", then considered as a first order comment and suggestion, that in general seems fine.

But:

1. One side of the culture wars really likes to temporarily put on a cloak of neutrality in a way that pretends that only its opposition is making a moral claim. This sort of "remove moral stances from casual conversation" position can similarly position itself as being neutral while actually being a weapon pointed in one direction.

2. If society as a whole is perpetrating some continual harm of some form, saying "don't interrupt our discussion about X to complain about it!" is itself perpetuating that harm, and is an expression of entitlement. If in the 1960s a white person in the south said "don't derail this conversation about hamburgers to rant about how we need to end segregation!" then they were part of the problem. Similarly today, I think it's totally appropriate to mention in that hamburger discussion that (a) beef really does have a large carbon footprint (b) the amazon really is being cut down for meat production for example.

3. We _do_ all form our worldviews in part based on what we see others expressing. No one emerges from a cave having worked out how they view everything from first principles free from the influence of the people around them. All of this public discourse does have an impact. And though large societal changes do also require organized action, they are of course also preceded by discussion, some of it uncomfortable or perceived as "disruptive" by some, which prepares society for that change.

Re: The inescapable rise of moral superiority

#34

Post by laurels-marts »

rexpop wrote: post #29
laurels-marts wrote: post #12

> the term “pregnant people” is somehow degrading to women She sneaked that one in though didn’t she.

Sneaked? How's it different from the other examples?

In all previous examples there’s a clear pattern where an initial subject matter evolves into a broader social or cultural issue. In the last example, this pattern is broken, and it instead simply presents a statement without the prior context or escalation. A disruption in argumentative flow, if you will.

Re: The inescapable rise of moral superiority

#35

Post by lapcat »

abeppu wrote: post #33

So if the uptake is "refrain from (non-productive) virtue signalling, especially where that takes the form of criticism or indignation directed at someone else", then considered as a first order comment and suggestion, that in general seems fine. But: 1. One side of the culture wars really likes to temporarily put on a cloak of neutrality in a way that pretends that only its opposition is making a moral claim. This s…

> preceded by discussion, some of it uncomfortable or perceived as "disruptive" by some, which prepares society for that change.

Is yelling in social media sound bites "discussion" though?

Recently I blocked an internet rando on social media who was arguing with me and ridiculously compared himself with Martin Luther King, because he was being "disruptive". It's true that advocates for social change are often viewed as disruptive, but the converse is not true: just being disruptive doesn't make you an effective advocate for social change. MLK spoke and wrote at length, eloquently. He wasn't writing "dunk" replies and quote tweets.

Re: The inescapable rise of moral superiority

#36

Post by antisyzygy »

pbj1968 wrote: post #28
antisyzygy wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem overly concerned with that one issue. Truth is if the government wanted to do this you'd have no chance in hell resisting using your AR-15. They's suspend the constitution and the military would be deployed Stateside. You'd be an ill-equipped Russian soldier against NATO hardware like in Ukraine. 10-20 of you dead for every 1 US military member you take out. The better option is to ensure you have a Democrac…

Would some of the military be sympathetic to the rebellion? Would the military turn their guns on their own citizens? Would the military be able to protect their family members from people with AR-15s? People hiding in trees and caves with rifles have defeated many superior forces… including our own… twice.

>Would some of the military be sympathetic to the rebellion?

Would the sympathetic military members be able to seize sufficient weapons to fight back? Doubt it.

Also you're suggesting a group of civilians armed with AR-15s would be able to fight back. If you believe some of the military has your back then you just undermined your own point that we need to be able to fight back with our assault rifles.

>Would the military turn their guns on their own citizens?

Militaries in the world have quite often turned guns on civilians before, I wouldn't put it past ours. Not at all. Especially since a lot of it's commanded over by far-right Christian Nationalists.

>Would the military be able to protect their family members from people with AR-15s?

The military members would be able to protect their own families, if you even knew who they were in the first place. Also it's a bit messed up you basically mentioned killing non-combatants as a tactic to be used in this hypothetical war.

>People hiding in trees and caves with rifles have defeated many superior forces… including our own… twice.

Uhhh I don't know about that. Vietnam was using a lot of WWII style tech. We got really advanced stuff now. We gave Ukraine our hand-me-downs nobody wanted anymore and they're absolutely dominating Russia which has more people and lots and lots of firearms.

Face it, you're obsessed with guns. That's cool, I kinda get it because I own a few myself. However it's taken over your brain. You brought this very specific thing up in a much more general conversation so you must be thinking about this A LOT.

Re: The inescapable rise of moral superiority

#37

Post by abeppu »

lapcat wrote: post #35
abeppu wrote: post #33

So if the uptake is "refrain from (non-productive) virtue signalling, especially where that takes the form of criticism or indignation directed at someone else", then considered as a first order comment and suggestion, that in general seems fine. But: 1. One side of the culture wars really likes to temporarily put on a cloak of neutrality in a way that pretends that only its opposition is making a moral claim. This s…

> preceded by discussion, some of it uncomfortable or perceived as "disruptive" by some, which prepares society for that change. Is yelling in social media sound bites "discussion" though? Recently I blocked an internet rando on social media who was arguing with me and ridiculously compared himself with Martin Luther King, because he was being "disruptive". It's true that advocates for social change are often viewed…

Ok, I agree that disruption for the sake of disruption is distinct from disruption as a tactic towards some actual goal.

But also, MLK was part of a movement with a huge number of people, almost none of whom had his style. But the people who marched or sat at lunch counters or got beat up on bridges were still contributing something valuable in doing so even if they didn't write great letters from Birmingham jail or whatever.

Re: The inescapable rise of moral superiority

#38

Post by em-bee »

sublinear wrote: post #6
ddq wrote: post #2

Loved the last paragraph, always good to end with ideas for positive action. >As cathartic as venting one’s outrage can be in the moment, it’s clear that moral grandstanding accomplishes very little beyond the fleeting satisfaction that it brings. Shaming people doesn’t seem to change their behaviour, and invoking mass shooting victims in an argument about hamburgers doesn’t move the needle on gun control. Social cha…

> Social change doesn’t come from posting but from purposeful collective action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slacktivism Slacktivism is not going anywhere.

of course not, if it wanted to go somewhere, it would have to take action ;-)

Re: The inescapable rise of moral superiority

#39

Post by [deleted] »

colechristensen wrote: post #8

People blamed organized religion for this kind of thing but it’s pretty clear theology not required. The spectrum of pepperpots to moral crusaders is quite present with no religion at all. Quite possibly worse than before. At least your organized religions tended to have a nontrivial portion of their teachings about being generally nice to each other.

[deleted]

Re: The inescapable rise of moral superiority

#40

Post by lapcat »

abeppu wrote: post #37
lapcat wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> preceded by discussion, some of it uncomfortable or perceived as "disruptive" by some, which prepares society for that change. Is yelling in social media sound bites "discussion" though? Recently I blocked an internet rando on social media who was arguing with me and ridiculously compared himself with Martin Luther King, because he was being "disruptive". It's true that advocates for social change are often viewed…

Ok, I agree that disruption for the sake of disruption is distinct from disruption as a tactic towards some actual goal. But also, MLK was part of a movement with a huge number of people, almost none of whom had his style. But the people who marched or sat at lunch counters or got beat up on bridges were still contributing something valuable in doing so even if they didn't write great letters from Birmingham jail or…

That's the thing about social media dunks: you can't get beat up for them. They show no personal courage or commitment. Social media dunking is disorganized, unprofessional, and likely only seen by one's own followers, if anyone. Whereas the sit-ins were well-organized and designed to bring wider public attention: "The protesters had been encouraged to dress professionally, to sit quietly, and to occupy every other stool so that potential white sympathizers could join in." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_rights_movement#Sit-ins,...

Randomly flailing about, acting like an online vigilante, is extremely unlikely to be effective.

Post reply on HN