RWarehall: All you are doing is spouting a bunch of words to stifle a discussion. You are the one being irrational here by attacking particular words in lieu of of an actual discussion. They are clearly exaggerating their complaint and doing so in a way to spout off their own "virtues" by demanding more of an apology than was provided. That's the very definition of "virtue signaling". It doesn't take "mind-reading" to see what they are doing. GoG already apologized, but the only thing these people will be happy with is an admission of guilt when its not clear there is any more to the story. And of course if GoG would come out and admit to it, the response would still be the same "I told you so".
How am I stifling a discussion when I am participating in the discussion?
Yes, I'm saying that it isn't productive to use some terms. There are a number of terms I think have become problem terms for having a meaningful discussion and I gave an example of one on the other side of the issue that I think isn't useful in the context of having a discussion. The problem with those terms is that they aren't meant to be descriptive of an action or belief, they are meant to be insults. Asking people to be civil in discussion isn't stifling discussion, it's the exact opposite of that.
You're the one who just keeps saying the same thing over and over without any attempt to move the conversation forward. I've agreed with you on most of your salient points, just not on the fact that you can accurately judge if a person is actually virtue signalling, because you can't. It is is impossible without knowing a persons motivation. The only way that you can believe that is by projecting your beliefs on someone else.
The actual definition of virtue signalling is as follows: "an attempt to show other people that you are a good person, for example by expressing opinions that will be acceptable to them, especially on social media." Unless you know that they are doing this to gain favour from a specific group and not because they are genuinely offended than it does not meet the actual definition. And again, regardless of what you read into their posts, you can't know what they actually believe or feel and therefore you can't show that they are virtue signalling.
PoppyAppletree: Protip: if you add a reply to someone via edit several minutes after you post, it's extremely likely that person won't see it. Additionally, only the reply button generates a notification, quote tags do not. I'd already read your original post before you edited it, and the thread had moved on. I had no idea you'd directed a comment at me until now.
Pond86: I only added: No business only uses one person for social media now days.
fronzelneekburm: That's who they're going after. A RetardEra admin who goes by the Twitter handle Hecht_ERA_ allegedly helped dig up Linko's doxx in retaliation for the tweet.
Pond86: What is doxx?
It's publicly posting a persons personal information like address and phone number with the intent to have people harass them.
