Sanctimony, self-righteousness, and virtue signalling.

[Misery]

I beg to differ.
The words I presented have negative connotations imbedded.
All three are deemed as being arrogant/supercilious.

That's the technical definition, though... that's not truly how the real world works. People are more complicated and nuanced than the thesaurus you pulled those lists from, or the dictionary that hands people the original definition. And really, I've never met a single person... not even one... who hasnt shown some of those qualities.

Even you, no offense meant. What you've just said here, and what you're saying in this thread overall, could easily be taken that way. The thread as a whole is basically "these are my morals. Surely you all agree with them, because if you dont, there are problems". That ABSOLUTELY fits multiple words you've listed here.

My point is that nobody is perfect with this stuff. We all do it, from time to time, and there are no exceptions to that rule. I firmly believe that.

Again though, what truly matters is your actions. There's more to being a good or bad person than fitting into some printed definition in a dictionary or whatever. To try to fit everyone into perfectly shaped boxes like that, like well... that's a very slippery slope. And it doesnt lead to a friendly place. Just something to keep in mind.

 

[Jonn]

There is a lot of virtue signaling in political discourse and propaganda. I especially dislike that, as it frequently substitutes for concrete material action. It lets people think that they are good without having to actually make themselves uncomfortable.

For some, it is all about "feelings".
I expected that overwhelmingly, people on the spectrum would lean towards rationality rather than emotionalism.
Based on personal experience, I have realised I was rather naive in that assumption.

There is a mix of both rational and irrational people in the autistic community.
It is simply a at a different ratio than I was expecting to find.

"Live and learn."

 

[Darkkin]

I will admit to being an occasional virtue signaler. If there is something I think is erroneous, inaccurate, potentially harmful, or unfair I will speak up.

 

[Jonn]

That's the technical definition, though... that's not truly how the real world works. People are more complicated and nuanced than the thesaurus you pulled those lists from, or the dictionary that hands people the original definition. And really, I've never met a single person... not even one... who hasnt shown some of those qualities.

Interesting.
In spirit of friendliness, I would like to ask you:
Where have I suggested that anyone is perfect?
To the contrary, I have constantly posted that it is a case of managing our biases.

Some are better than others in maintaining their personal integrity and this is often a result of experience, but more importantly, the desire to embrace an ethical philosophical standard.

Even you, no offense meant. What you've just said here, and what you're saying in this thread overall, could easily be taken that way.

I am mortally offended <Jonn walks off in a huff><joke>

BTW, People have been trying to offend me all my life.
It isn't possible these days, though some still try, especially those who abuse their position of power.
Water off a German Shepherd's back. (My handle is "Jonn Shepherd" as in Stargate Atlantis, btw. Hence my avatar).

I think you are trying to connect concepts that aren't compatible.
Sanctimony, as an example, explicitly has a negative connotation.
Pointing out an unfavourable concept/characteristic is not an act of sanctimony, surely.
Suggesting that people should work at overcoming a negative character flaw is not self-righteous, surely.

However, I have been called "arrogant" in the past, and I understand why some think I am.
It is a case of some people confusing confidence with arrogance.
Could it be that my self-confidence and self-esteem is being misinterpreted as sanctimony at times when it shouldn't be?

I will answer that for you: Yes.

It doesn't bother me, these days.
Every person has a different level of enlightenment.
And, yes, I do know how arrogant that may sound. lol

But the Truth is the Truth.
No more...
No less...

The reason I am confident that I am not a sanctimonious person is because of the history of sanctimonious abuse I have had to endure over my lifetime.
It would make me very uncomfortable to turn into one of the people who have hounded me.

Let me make it clear.
I despise sanctimony, self-righteousness, and virtue signalling, and consider people who engage in this as ill informed, egocentric, anti-intellectual, and lacking in compassion.

This saying springs to mind:
"There but for the grace of god go I."

 

[Jonn]

I will admit to being an occasional virtue signaler. If there is something I think is erroneous, inaccurate, potentially harmful, or unfair I will speak up.

To be a "virtue signaller", you would need to have the intention of showing others how "glorious" you are.
You would be wanting to impress others, as your primary concern.

Is this what you are doing?
I suspect not.
If you are, I suggest "you work on that".

 

[Darkkin]

To be a "virtue signaller", you would need to have the intention of showing others how "glorious" you are.
You would be wanting to impress others, as your primary concern.

Is this what you are doing?
I suspect not.
If you are, I suggest "you work on that".

Nope. I'm about as glorious as mud. Awesome to a toddler, but problematic and an outright nuisance to adults.

Just as with presenting discussion points based on logic, some people get really bent out of shape when you present quantifiable facts and prove a point.

People tell you you are being (insert ditto thread title here), but logically you know you were entirely reasonable.

 

[Misery]

Suggesting that people should work at overcoming a negative character flaw is not self-righteous, surely.

Indeed, this is true. However, implying that someone is effectively a villain (I cant think of a different way to put that) merely for displaying a trait that, frankly, every bloody person has somewhere in them to some degree is where the problem lies.

People dont fit into these convenient, perfectly phrased definitions. Which is usually the problem with dictionary terms and such... they work within a technical landscape (for instance, with computers, a thing either is or isnt... there is no in-between, and if there is, something is probably broken). But people arent "technical". They arent square pegs that fit into perfectly square holes, or round pegs, or whatever. More like... oddly shaped blobs that sorta morph over time.

That's part of why things like, say, the diagnosis of autism, for instance, is so bloody difficult to do.

It's not a matter of people being "perfect" or "imperfect", either. It's a matter of being careful not to apply a purely technical term or idea to, well, anyone.

Particularly in a world where appearances can be oh so deceiving, and where misconceptions and misperceptions are rampant.

I've lost track of where I was going with this. It's been a long day. I cannot do the word thing properly right now.

 

[Darkkin]

My brother-in-law is sanctimonious. He is a lot like Mister Collins, oblivious, blundering, and well meaning, (absolutely no harm in him), but he is one of the stodgiest people I've ever met. Humour and sarcasm often offend him because we don't tend to take him seriously because (see Mister Collins reference (If you really need a laugh the Mister Collins in the 1980 BBC production of Pride and Prejudice. That Mister Collins is a satirical gem.). If we did we would be as stilted and morose as he is.

Oddly enough, when I do encounter individuals like this and am forced to engage socially my go to defense is humour and sarcasm, my humour being dented and decidedly obscure that many references go unnoticed by the subject, but are readily apparent to others.

Sometimes it is easier just to let them assume you are a bit daft. It gets you out of the conversation faster.

 

[Matthias]

It's like those holistic medicine practitioners with their 'wholier then thou' attitude.

Or like doctors with a medical degree who have a god complex. They're like, "I'm a doctor. Who are you to question my judgment?" as if having a medical degree made them infallible.

 

[Jonn]

People dont fit into these convenient, perfectly phrased definitions. Which is usually the problem with dictionary terms and such... they work within a technical landscape (for instance, with computers, a thing either is or isnt... there is no in-between, and if there is, something is probably broken). But people arent "technical". They arent square pegs that fit into perfectly square holes, or round pegs, or whatever. More like... oddly shaped blobs that sorta morph over time.

You seem to be misrepresenting my position.
A simple misunderstanding.

I have said that people are not perfect and that there is a need for constant bias management/assessment.
We are virtually all tribalist as a result of the evolutionary process.
We simply have to work against that instinctual tendency if integrity is important to us.

I would like to point out that there are in fact people who embrace sanctimony, self-righteousness, and virtue signalling.
I have met some.

Now, you can either disbelieve/disregard what I has said, or agree that some people do consistently set themselves up unjustifiably, to be of a higher morality than many others.
I am not saying some individuals don't have higher integrity.
I am pointing out that some people actively present themselves as being superior to impress others.

While I have no religious bent (I'm a card carrying hardcore atheist. lol), I do appreciate the message of:
"Let he without sin cast the first stone."

Sanctimony, self-righteousness, and virtue signalling is addictive and is a result of chemical reactions in the brain.
It is emotion, not rationality based.
Many can't seem to "kick the habit", unfortunately.

I have been amazed at how often sanctimonious people will jump to conclusions "at the drop of a hat" to condemn someone without waiting for all the facts to come in.
And if their spontaneous assessment is proven to be wrong, there never seems to be an acknowledgement of that.

From this, there seems to be a connection between sanctimony and the lack of personal integrity in the form of honesty.

And further, this suggests to me that heightened egocentricity is influencing some people's emotional needs at the expense of rational thinking.

Just a thought.

 

[Jonn]

Nope. I'm about as glorious as mud. Awesome to a toddler, but problematic and an outright nuisance to adults.

I am convinced that sanctimony ties in with the need for social status.
The "Look at me, look at me" approach I think verifies that.
You don't seem to be that sort of person, Mr Mud.

 

[All-Rounder]

This saying springs to mind:
"There but for the grace of god go I."

"Last of all, as to one born abnormally, he appeared to me. For I am the least of the apostles, not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am...".

I yam what I yam.


'This proverb is an expression of humility; in using it, a speaker acknowledges that outside factors (such as God's grace, or one's upbringing) have played a role in one's success in life.
Used also to express that one cannot judge others for their flaws

for we are all

equally flawed.' - the terror

And must suffer for it. And learn.
And persecute the Church more.
Like hippocrites.
Like the worms and the Scum of Earth.
And we want to continue.

 

[Gerald Wilgus]

I think that despite the ASD that went unrecognized my talents provided a privelage that was not afforded to POC in my classes who I thought were highly intelligent and deserving of more support

 

[All-Rounder]

I think that despite the ASD that went unrecognized my talents provided a privelage that was not afforded to POC in my classes who I thought were highly intelligent and deserving of more support

Enslavement of the different ones. Putting them into a box, or stamping a label on them does not allow them the benefit of showing who they are, forced to exist under trivial rules that are supposed to be the fence within which they can live. To not realize that the concept of their rebellion was in itself a sign they aren't what they were thought to be. They don't fit those delimitations.

 

[Jonn]

"Last of all, as to one born abnormally, he appeared to me. For I am the least of the apostles, not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am...".

I yam what I yam.

 

[All-Rounder]

whats the video from?

 

[Jonn]

whats the video from?

A Popeye movie with Robin Williams

Popeye​

• 1980
• A
• 1h 37m

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081353/

 

[Slime_Punk]

What is your intention in situations such as theses?
Is it to humiliate another person by showing the "goodliness" <sic> in yourself?
If so, I think you may want to work on that.

If you are standing up for someone who is being oppressed, regardless of public acclamation, then I will stand by your side.

"Traditional" autistics were known to be protective, btw.
These days, anything goes, or so it sometimes seems.

No, I just think it's beautiful when people discuss what matters most to them, rather than sweeping things under the rug to appease others. I don't believe in absolutes and I always root for the underdog.

Most of the people who you're telling to work on themselves are doing it everyday, perfectly well without your written permission. Just wanted to throw that out there, because as we established, that's what I do.

 

[All-Rounder]

Thought: The only fallacy that is not a fallacy is attack to the hominem.

You can still be right if you do lol.

 

[Jonn]

I don't believe in absolutes and I always root for the underdog.

This is traditional autistic thinking.
Sadly, it is not as common as it once was.

Most of the people who you're telling to work on themselves are doing it everyday, perfectly well without your written permission. Just wanted to throw that out there, because as we established, that's what I do.

Firstly, if someone is being sanctimonious (the intention involves the desire for public acclamation and the vilification of another to accentuate their own virtue), then I do believe there needs to be an adjustment in thinking.

For example:
Some people choose not to make their charitable donations public. Others shout out their virtuousness and demand respect for their actions.

Secondly, please reread my posts. There is nothing to suggest I am giving anyone "permission".
I have explicitly stated that sanctimony needs to be "worked on", imo.

I doubt you are advocating for morally questionable attitudes.
I think there has simply been a misunderstanding.

Pax...