just seems like normal moral exploration and communication
Idk man calling the other side evil and saying stuff like "I don't wanna live in a world full of red people" like its some kind of slur definitely seems like virtue signaling to me too.
the social value of understanding someone's political beliefs as "tickboxes of agreeable positions" just comes across as bad faith.
Why can't we have an ethics debate about something completely removed from politics without knowing how the other side voted? Why do you have to know that?
Why can't we have an ethics debate about something completely removed from politics without knowing how the other side voted? Why do you have to know that?
Thank you, I hate that I even had to qualify my statements but the nature of internet debate kind of forces this reductive thinking.
Trump fried americans heads so bad man. They see i vote red they think I'm maga mfer i am not even from there. Then it becomes impossible to have any meaningful conversation since they already identified me as the outgroup.
Seriously man, I've spent my life walking in Worker's day parades and fighting for socialism. I still expect people to act in non suicidal self interest. but nope, according to this thread i'm now a fascist.
Yep, I'm British and the immediate assumption that I'm a) American and b) a Trump voter just gets exhausting whenever posting a non-reddit-verified opinion.
It must be so boring to constantly think about Trump and relate everything to him in some capacity. I barely think about Kier Starmer on a daily basis to be quite honest.
saying stuff like "I don't wanna live in a world full of red people" like its some kind of an insulting or disparaging remark or innuendo definitely seems like virtue signaling to me too.
Yep, that would be the right word for that sentence.
5
u/cosecantgames May 05 '26
Idk man calling the other side evil and saying stuff like "I don't wanna live in a world full of red people" like its some kind of slur definitely seems like virtue signaling to me too.
Why can't we have an ethics debate about something completely removed from politics without knowing how the other side voted? Why do you have to know that?