Maybe this was done for optics and as a good-faith effort. Maybe efforts to increase inclusivity can happen alongside paying your taxes. Maybe all black people don't agree with the author.
Please leave them on reddit, and discuss things with nuance here.
> Not sure, I never said that. I said "virtue signaling" is a thought-terminating cliché, like "fake news."
Evidently you think the phrase, rather than its actual meaning, is the issue. OK.
> it's (using the term 'virtue signaling') only function is to stop an argument from proceeding further, in other words "end the debate with a cliché... not a point.
I personally don't think stating you believe a position is taken due to optics ends the debate. Likewise pointing out that information is being manipulated by those that seek to report it. The short term for these is 'virtue signaling' and 'fake news'. I'm not sure if you have ever lived in the US but in the current political climate it likely does the exact opposite of stopping arguments proceeding further.
The concept of 'thought terminating cliches' - that these concerns somehow aren't valid points - seems itself to terminate thought.
Please lets actually consider arguments here, rather than dismissing them because they're considered popular.
> Virtue signalling is a pejorative neologism for when one expresses a morally disingenuous viewpoint with the intent of communicating good character. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling
Accusing someone('s company) of being "morally disingenuous" (i.e. a lier) will likely end rational discussion, regardless of whether it's true or not.
Of course it's a neologism - the behavior is new! Most individuals in the nineties did not have the ability to collectivise and instantly broadcast their desires to corporations with an audience of followers - hence brands generally did not partake in social causes.
