The inescapable rise of moral superiority
thewalrus.ca
The inescapable rise of moral superiority
1–10 of 49 posts
Re: The inescapable rise of moral superiority
#2Loved 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 change doesn’t come from posting but from purposeful collective action: organizing, voting, protesting. At worst, the catharsis of grandstanding deludes us into thinking that virtuous online posturing is a meaningful form of solidarity and not a fruitless, ego-driven impulse. Tosi and Warmke argue that the purpose of recognizing moral grandstanding isn’t to get other people to knock it off; it’s to stop doing it yourself.
Re: The inescapable rise of moral superiority
#3> Why does every online discussion terminate in ethical grandstanding?
I understand the use of "every" is hyperbole, but that's not the only way online discussions terminate.
Sometimes they end in rational debate where the conflict is a matter of epistemology rather than morality.
Re: The inescapable rise of moral superiority
#4Having the right opinion as a form of social status.
Re: The inescapable rise of moral superiority
#5Personally, I've found that it's better to define myself by what I'm for, as opposed to what I'm against.
Just helps me to keep my head in a decent place, and helps to avoid the "putting a fire out with gasoline" thing that happens so often, with online communication.
Re: The inescapable rise of moral superiority
#6Loved 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.
Re: The inescapable rise of moral superiority
#7> Why does every online discussion terminate in ethical grandstanding? I understand the use of "every" is hyperbole, but that's not the only way online discussions terminate. Sometimes they end in rational debate where the conflict is a matter of epistemology rather than morality.
[flagged]
Re: The inescapable rise of moral superiority
#8People 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.
Re: The inescapable rise of moral superiority
#9Loved 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…
[flagged]
Re: The inescapable rise of moral superiority
#10Your clothes and shoes were made by children, your electronics inevitability become toxic e-waste, your food is unhealthy, environmentally unsustainable and picked by exploited labourers, your language is violence and microaggressions, you're probably descended from colonists and if you aren't, you're still benefiting from it's history. Am I missing anything? We can spend all day tearing each other down like crabs in a bucket, if we want to.