Virtue Signalling My Views

The modern use of the term “virtue signalling” as a pejorative emerged in the years before 2010.  Wikipedia characterizes virtue signalling as “public, empty gestures intended to convey socially approved attitudes without any associated risk or sacrifice” and also as communication “indicating that you are kind, decent and virtuous”.   In the modern shaming oriented cultures of the far left and far right, virtue signalling may be used pre-emptively or reactively, but in either case, often defensively.  No one wants to be mis-characterized, labeled, nor shunned.

It is extremely tedious to virtue signal in order to prevent being labeled or mis-characterized and many people don’t or won’t – because they assume that the default should be to assume they are virtuous until demonstrated otherwise. Also, oftentimes the virtual signalling is ignored or worse, assumed to mask some evil intent.

That all said, I shall enumerate where I currently stand on various issues.  I reserve the right to learn, grow, and evolve my views.  I view it as a continuous exercise to absorb new information, facts, logic, and reasoning towards the end of improving my understanding and outlook.

Note: My use of the word America, below is using the scope of the U.S., and also capturing the original and evolving American and U.S. visions.

  • Racism, Discrimination, Sexism, Harassment, Violence, Intimidation, Bullying, Oppression, Hate Speech, Narcissism. I am opposed to all of these in any group or individual towards any other group or individual.  I prefer thoughtful engagement and conversation to work out approaches to differences.
  • Postmodern NeoMarxism.  I am strongly opposed. I am concerned by arguments that many a University liberal arts faculty member have taken up these ideas, and I think dialogue should occur to establish facts and develop solutions.
  • Equal Opportunity. I am in favor of equal opportunity, I believe equality of outcome is impossible because outcome has an infinite number of factors and dimensions. I am in favor of affirmative action when it comes to skills development in the education system. I believe the education system must encompass life-long learning enabled by modern online courses with certifications and degrees.
  • Immigration and Residency.  I support the idea of the U.S. as a melting pot.
    • All citizens should be expected to adopt American laws.
    • All citizens should be expected to blend in with American values.
      • All citizens should be expected to contribute their values to the American values melting pot, in a positive way.
    • All citizens should be expected to add value to America.
    • Some entrants may receive visas or new citizenship for humanitarian purposes.
    • I think we need a well designed and optimized guest worker program that allows for legal entry.
    • I am opposed to illegal immigration.  It’s illegal, after all!  However, as we have not had a good guest worker program, I am ok with allowing formerly illegal immigrants to apply for the guest worker program and granting amnesty to those who were otherwise law abiding guest workers. Furthermore I would grant visa or amnesty to immediate family members of a guest worker.
  • Gay and Non-Binary Rights. I support all citizens having equal rights, no matter what their sexual or gender identity or preference.
  • Civil Partnership. I advocate that the government create the institution of a civil partnership.  Each individual may opt into one reciprocal civil partnership, and each partnership would have multiple opt-in rights.  That civil partnership could convey a variety of rights between two people, with some of those rights being negotiable.  I would place no restrictions on those two people other than they both be adults. The list of civil partnership rights would include many of those formerly covered by marriage. Note that a civil partnership can encompass more partnership scenarios than a marriage.
  • Marriage. Marriage would require a civil partnership as a prerequisite. A religious marriage, for example, would convey no more rights under the law than the civil partnership upon which it was based.
  • Guns.  My understanding is that the right to bear arms, as granted in the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution, is intended to guard or defend or fight against tyranny by the government.  I am ok with that.  I don’t see any need for rapid fire guns.  I am for more and ongoing background checks, formal training on use and safety, biometric gun security, formal licensing, and periodic proficiency testing. I think technology is moving rapidly, and this issue may need to be re-examined.  For example, if the government had armed robots or drones they could render guns so inferior as to make it impossible to achieve the goal of the 2nd amendment.
  • Abortion. I don’t have a solution that would satisfy both sides of this issue and that is difficult because I would rather unite than divide. I find myself morally persuaded to some degree by arguments from both sides. It really is a conundrum. Clearly as technology progresses, fetus viability is earlier and earlier in the pregnancy.  A fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks, but I don’t think pain perception, nor viability, should be morally decisive factors.  I am leaning towards consciousness as defining human life. I think that pragmatically we would be wise, as a nation, to move such a contentious impasse-forming slowly-moving issue to the states.  This would likely result in the abolition of abortion in many conservative states.  The debate could then continue in all states.   Social institutions could seek to aid those who either desire to carry the baby through to adoption or those who desire an abortion but do not have the funds to travel to a provider in a state where it is legal. However, thinking into the future, there will be a new factor to consider, and it could upend this issue, and that is artificial general intelligence and how we define individuality for AGI.
  • Populism & Nationalism in Balance with Foreign Policy.   I think we need balance in concern over U.S. citizens vs. the rest of the world, and that the U.S. should apply significantly more focus and priority to problems within our borders than it has in the last several decades.  I recognize that the world is entering a new re-alignment of countries. I also recognize that by many objective standards that very good progress has been made in R.O.W. well-being and the trends are positive, in general.  I am an advocate of the U.S. rethinking it’s approach for the next century.
  • Trade. I believe in fair trade, not free trade – and I extend that fairness to the makers and service workers and their communities. Trade based on exploitation is not fair trade.
  • Death Penalty. I support where the possibility of false conviction is very low and the cost is reasonable.  However, I am opposed when there is real possibility of false convictions or high cost.
  • Drugs.  I am for complete decriminalization.  Focus on treatment for those who need it.
  • Religion.  I believe in the separation of church and state.  I would like to see the interfaith leadership call for dialogue towards addition of individual coexistence books/verses/chapters to the major religious texts.  I could imagine a case where government licenses only religions that support a small set of core principles, such as Reciprocally Honoring The Dignity of the Individual.
  • Redistribution.  I haven’t studied the subject enough to formulate views on fair net goals of redistribution.    However, I am opposed to redistribution by violence.  Redistribution should be managed by the government.   The ideas around means tested basic income are fascinating.  I can see how basic income could reduce the need for other redistribution programs – such as welfare. Empirical studies are necessary.
  • Personal Responsibility. It is your job to make good and responsible decisions and not to blame others or the society around you for your failures.

So those are my current and always evolving views.

While writing this I had an idea for an app that can show your positions on issues and compare them to others. Instead of being labeled as a tribal group, the app would enable discernment of viewpoints in detail.  Perhaps it could be gamified in some clever way. Imagine that you bump phones with another and the app displays each of your positions and the differentials.   The app could include tips about constructive dialogue and destructive dialogue.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s