I cannot decide to what extent they see it that way. They certainly have entirely plausible virtuous reasoning for everything they do. Whether that is what they actually believe or not, I have no idea. It is hard to understand the point of view of someone who seems like causing pain is their only priority, and I prefer to think that only describes a small fraction of the people I disagree with politically.

You would need to ask that of someone who agrees with their font choices. I am only opining that they probably have $REASONS that they believe to be virtuous, and that by calling it virtue signaling, we point that out.

In my time as a righteous woke progressive, it eventually dawned on me that the other side was just as likely to believe in the righteousness of their cause, even if I couldn't understand their reasoning for it. It also dawned on me that the righteous folks on the other side of the divide likely see my beliefs and the reasoning by which I arrived at them as equally baffling.

If both sides believe fully in their righteousness, and see their opponents as wholly unreasonable, then we will end up in a non-religious holy war.

The only way to recover is for both sides to turn down their righteousness.

One small step to do that is to at least try to understand--without agreeing--why the people with whom you disagree hold their beliefs, which ones are inflexible and which are mutable.

Since January 2025.