Scientific American
First defined and delineated in the moral philosophy literature, moral grandstanding can be defined as “the use and abuse of moral talk to seek status, to promote oneself, or to boost your own brand.”A moral grandstander is therefore a person who frequently uses public discussion of morality and politics to impress others with their moral qualities. Crucially, these individuals are primarily motivated by the desire to enhance their own status or ranking among their peers.
Let’s face it: Moral grandstanding seems to be everywhere these days. As clinical psychologist Joshua Grubbs notes, “Perhaps, just perhaps, part of the reason so many of us are so awful to each other so much of the time on here is related to a desire to show off to likeminded others. In essence, sometimes we behave poorly in an effort to gain the respect and esteem of folks like us.” More
“Perhaps, just perhaps, part of the reason so many of us are so awful to each other so much of the time on here is related to a desire to show off to likeminded others.“
Hey, now…I resemble that statement!
The bible gives sage advice when performing good works. Keep them to yourself. That what I do. (See there? That’s what NOT to do!.)
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
― C. S. Lewis
“When A annoys or injures B on the pretense of saving or improving X, A is a scoundrel.”
And
“The New Deal began, like the Salvation Army, by promising to save humanity. It ended, again like the Salvation Army, by running flophouses and disturbing the peace”
H.L. Mencken
This nation would be a healthier place if a certain political group and thier media hacks stopped with their FAKE moral grandstanding.
Turning the other cheek for so many years didn’t stop the abuse either. I don’t see a compromise between the two sides any time soon.
“Perhaps, just perhaps, part of the reason so many of us are so awful to each other so much of the time on here is related to a desire to show off to likeminded others. In essence, sometimes we behave poorly in an effort to gain the respect and esteem of folks like us.”
Every Cock crows on his own dung hill
I offer these quotes and idioms to point out that virtue signaling is nothing new.
Scientific American is a bastion of self-appointed, high-level bullshit.
Consider the source. They’re not what they used to be.
I’m right, the rest of the world is wrong.
Alinsky. They think this is turning the opposition’s rules against them.
They have a sick fear or hatred of Christianity (seeing Christianity as, inter alia, anti-abortion, in favor of porn censorship, anti- same-sex marriage, etc.), even to the extent that it causes them to embrace the most disgusting and violent groups (e.g. jihadists, communist tyrants) so long as these are anti-Christian. The fake moral preaching is part of this.
Taco truck outfit apologizes profusely for serving ICE workers, then apologizes again — for saying sorry the first time
https://www.stltoday.com/news/taco-truck-apologizes-for-serving-ice-workers-then-apologizes-again/article_1cc8b0f1-87e9-59d2-9810-35b793ff9c18.html
After years of subscribing it was painful to cancel S.A. because they decided to wallow in the gutter with MSNBC.
We sin because we are sinners, not sinners because we sin.
Moral my ass: they’re fascists looking to loot the country. Right gore, Pelosi, Clinton, Kerry, Pelosi, etc?
Scientific American used to be scientific and Popular Science used to be about science as well. Now they’re just driven by their radical left wing woe is me the sky is falling, the earth is doomed Chicken Little agenda. And Nat Geo has gone over the deep end as well.