I lean toward cynically labeling conservative expressions as “dog whistles.” It simultaneously puts down your opposition without having to address the merits of their opinions while it earns brownie points with those who feel “oppressed.”
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Although that is an awful look, it does signal a kind of virtue.
(no message)
Link: https://youtu.be/J7QNw1LRJv4
that only enhance the abilities of nut job gun users to kill innocent citizens in great numbers during a single outing - all the while yelling Libs want to take away citizens rights making neocons (bragging they are protecting citizens along with the constitution) virtuous in caring about Citizens rights as they are being gunned down in large numbers. So insidious is this their (your) virtuousness claim that they are protecting citizens rights they also are claiming Libs are the problem in gun violence.
PS: so yeah, conservatives are cynical and gullible enough to eat that type of virtuousness up like ice-cream.
If you wanted to use an actual one to attack the opposing tribe, you could go with some of the pro-life folks who plaster bumper stickers on their vehicles and talk a big game but appear to be bereft of much compassion for people in general. Those particular folks tend to trumpet their pro-life stance as a signal that they're good people.
I have my own issues with the gun fixation crowd but I've never gotten the sense that they promote unrestricted gun rights to trumpet their virtue and signal that they're better people.
The examples are so numerous on the other side of the political spectrum right now and so well-chronicled, that it's not worth the time listing all the phony stances taken to appear virtuous and feel superior to others.
initially meant to be a more focused concept as it is a phrase.
"Patriots protect the second amendment" phrase is virtue signaling - Pithy and virtuous.
So yes, I do understand the concept - it's just not as concise as some seem to think. Is it an easy topic to post for a dialogue amongst rivals? Obviously not - Curly1918 thinks it's a clever thread starter but in reality, as you point out, it's not so easy to toss up.
Thanks for your definition. I honestly wasn't sure what it meant, and the first two examples didn't help that.
The GOP and their supporters in industry use it well in all sorts of ways. It's become a political tool to drive opinion in certain directions - it's like using a good effective ad campaign - It doesn't need to be factual, it just needs to be concise, hit the high notes and easily digested by the masses.
But rather the stupid comment about dog whistles.
(no message)
See. I got to criticize on an ad hominem basis, I get it. It’s the lazy person’s way to dispute a complex issue.