Virtue Signalling

[eyeball]

On 9/5/2017 at 10:12 AM, Argus said:

 

"Virtue Signalling refers to the public expression of an opinion on a given topic primarily for the purpose of displaying one’s moral superiority before a large audience to solicit their approval."

Yes, this sort of self-aggrandizing crap is even more obvious in the phrase "those on the left".

I bet a search of this all to common phrase in Argus' posts will yield hundreds and hundreds of results.

Edited September 6, 2017 by eyeball

[hot enough]

VS - it's the new conservative meme meant to be used as a counter to normal folks pointing out racist behavior. 

 

[Omni]

13 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Yes, this sort of self-aggrandizing crap is even more obvious in the phrase "those on the left".

I bet a search of this all to common phrase in Argus' posts will yield hundreds and hundreds of results.

Uh oh. Ready yourself for the insults.

[eyeball]

Pffft...do me a favour and tell 'em they can go piss up a rope.

Especially you know who.

[August1991]

On 9/6/2017 at 1:10 PM, Argus said:

What an amazing idea..... oh wait... I did.

Link, thread, WTF?

Note to moderator: Please move this thread to another topic.

=======

This (your) thread is useless in Canadian federal politics. "Virtue Signals" are lost among the noise of ordinary life.

I reckon that Laurier honestly signaled good virtue. IMHO, Mackenzie King first learned how to signal good virtue.

Pierre Trudeau, when he joined the federal Liberal Party, stated clearly that to gain power and do good: "signal virtue".

His son, a pale imitation of his father, has based his whole political career on "signaling virtue".

The federal Liberal Party, since the 1920s, is based on "virtue signals".

And yet Canada today, with some 35 million people, is among the most civilised places to live on the planet.

===

So many questions, so few answers.

Argus, let's discuss this elsewhere. 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 9, 2017 by August1991

[Charles Anthony]

On 9/6/2017 at 3:00 AM, August1991 said:

If you want to discuss "virtue-signals" in general, I suggest to moderators that we move the thread.

Done.

[Argus]

5 hours ago, Charles Anthony said:

Done.

But I had no intention of discussing virtue signals generally...

[blackbird]

On 9/5/2017 at 9:55 AM, Argus said:

The funny thing about Catherine McKenna's outrage that Erin O'toole called her NAFTA climate change demand virtue signalling is how clearly and obviously true it is, and how she reinforced that in her snarly reply.

O'Toole said that Liberal demands to include requirements on climate change in the negotiations on renewing NAFTA were nothing more than virtue signalling, and that the Liberals certainly knew there was between zero and less than zero change the Trump administration would accept that. McKenna replied - in French, in a facebook posting.

O'Toole is not, as you probably know, French, nor was his talk in French or in Quebec. McKenna is also not French. So why write her Facebook post in French if not as one more virtue signal, this time to Francophones? And her statement "We will continue to stand up for Canadian values at home and abroad"? If that isn't virtue signalling, what is? And it's nonsense in that the Liberals are not standing up for Canadian values at all since they will clearly drop this demand after they've 'signaled' their virtue to Canadian voter segments. Anyone with more than half a brain can see that. It's just like their earlier demand that the US end 'right to work' laws, which are state based anti-union laws. That's another absurd demand that has less than zero chance of ever going into NAFTA. But it will make their union allies happy, even though, of course, they'll drop it to get an agreement. 

And, of course, their  demand to end 'unfair tax loopholes' for small businesses, including doctors, is more virtue signalling. It's about their portraying themselves as the defenders of the middle class against the evil 'rich', who 'aren't paying their fair share' which apparently includes all doctors, dentists and other small business. Even calling it a tax loophole is a sign that this is only being done as part of their class warfare efforts.

One of the more tiresome aspects about these all style, no substance Liberals is their self-righteous indignation when it's pointed out to them that they and their emperor have no clothes.

http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/mckenna-says-she-is-done-with-ridiculous-tory-language-on-environment

Ezra Levant has a video on the Liberals and NAFTA.  He thinks it is possible the Libs are taking subjects to the negotiations so NAFTA will fail and they can have China as the major trading partner.  It is just an opinion.  I'm not sure what to make of it.  I do find it strange they would be taking things to the bargaining table which they know Trump would abhor and have nothing to do with free trade.

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 9/5/2017 at 2:25 PM, Argus said:

The funny thing about Catherine McKenna's outrage that Erin O'toole called her NAFTA climate change demand virtue signalling is how clearly and obviously true it is, and how she reinforced that in her snarly reply.

O'Toole said that Liberal demands to include requirements on climate change in the negotiations on renewing NAFTA were nothing more than virtue signalling, and that the Liberals certainly knew there was between zero and less than zero change the Trump administration would accept that. McKenna replied - in French, in a facebook posting.

O'Toole is not, as you probably know, French, nor was his talk in French or in Quebec. McKenna is also not French. So why write her Facebook post in French if not as one more virtue signal, this time to Francophones? And her statement "We will continue to stand up for Canadian values at home and abroad"? If that isn't virtue signalling, what is? And it's nonsense in that the Liberals are not standing up for Canadian values at all since they will clearly drop this demand after they've 'signaled' their virtue to Canadian voter segments. Anyone with more than half a brain can see that. It's just like their earlier demand that the US end 'right to work' laws, which are state based anti-union laws. That's another absurd demand that has less than zero chance of ever going into NAFTA. But it will make their union allies happy, even though, of course, they'll drop it to get an agreement. 

And, of course, their  demand to end 'unfair tax loopholes' for small businesses, including doctors, is more virtue signalling. It's about their portraying themselves as the defenders of the middle class against the evil 'rich', who 'aren't paying their fair share' which apparently includes all doctors, dentists and other small business. Even calling it a tax loophole is a sign that this is only being done as part of their class warfare efforts.

One of the more tiresome aspects about these all style, no substance Liberals is their self-righteous indignation when it's pointed out to them that they and their emperor have no clothes.

http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/mckenna-says-she-is-done-with-ridiculous-tory-language-on-environment

Politics is about looking good so she's just the same as anybody else. She's also perfectly entitled to reply in one of our national languages. 

Morneau's tax proposals are reasonable, not just fluff actually, and he has explained them well. Tax sprinkling is an indefensible practice and it's about time it was stopped. 

 

Edited September 12, 2017 by SpankyMcFarland

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 9/5/2017 at 3:54 PM, Spiderfish said:

The irony here is that many of the evil tax dodgers he's condemning are middle-class business owners just trying to make a living, who pay corporate taxes, then personal income taxes on any income they pay themselves, in addition to double CPP.  These people typically have no pension and no benefits.  Is he fighting for these middle class Canadians or against them??

It's pretty rich (no pun intended) watching Trudeau and Morneau portray themselves as leaders who truly and deeply connect with the middle class when it's obvious they have no clue and never have.

Doctors making over 400 k pa are not middle class by any stretch of the imagination.

[Argus]

3 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Politics is about looking good so she's just the same as anybody else. She's also perfectly entitled to reply in one of our national languages. 

Morneau's tax proposals are reasonable, not just fluff actually, and he has explained them well. Tax sprinkling is an indefensible practice and it's about time it was stopped.

The amount they will make from this move will almost certainly be outweighed by the cost of administering it, not to mention all the doctors who leave Canada. I"ve also heard a lot of complaints on the business network that this is going to have a major impact on tech startups and push them south of the border.

And he continues to bray about how it's making the 'wealthy' pay their fair share. Doctors don't have anywhere near the wealth he does. And of course, this tax won't apply to him and his wealthy in-laws.

Edited September 12, 2017 by Argus

[Argus]

3 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Doctors making over 400 k pa are not middle class by any stretch of the imagination.

Depends on expenses. They're not wealthy either. Wealthy is someone who is driven around in a limousine and flies around in private jets. Guys like Morneau and his in-laws the McCains.

Anyway, the bar is set a lot lower, at about $250k. After taxes and paying mortgages and college funds I doubt that's going to leave anyone enough to hire a chauffeur.

[Bonam]

7 hours ago, Argus said:

Depends on expenses. They're not wealthy either. Wealthy is someone who is driven around in a limousine and flies around in private jets. Guys like Morneau and his in-laws the McCains.

Anyway, the bar is set a lot lower, at about $250k. After taxes and paying mortgages and college funds I doubt that's going to leave anyone enough to hire a chauffeur.

"Wealthy" is a lot better measured by net worth than by income, I think. There's lots of people making 200-500k that still don't really know how to manage money and will never be wealthy, because if they lost their job or their business did poorly for a year they'd be in real financial trouble. To me, "wealthy" means you can stop actively doing anything to earn money today, and still have enough to live a life of comfort and luxury. So for example if you own enough investments to generate about 200k/year in passive income for the rest of your life, that's what I'd classify as wealthy. 

Edited September 13, 2017 by Bonam

[Argus]

15 hours ago, Bonam said:

"Wealthy" is a lot better measured by net worth than by income, I think. There's lots of people making 200-500k that still don't really know how to manage money and will never be wealthy, because if they lost their job or their business did poorly for a year they'd be in real financial trouble. To me, "wealthy" means you can stop actively doing anything to earn money today, and still have enough to live a life of comfort and luxury. So for example if you own enough investments to generate about 200k/year in passive income for the rest of your life, that's what I'd classify as wealthy. 

Well, in order to generate that kind of income with any reliability you need to be worth four or five million. I doubt many 1%ers have that kind of money. Morneau certainly does, and his Inlaws, well, to them that's chump change.

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 9/12/2017 at 6:52 PM, Argus said:

Depends on expenses. They're not wealthy either. Wealthy is someone who is driven around in a limousine and flies around in private jets. Guys like Morneau and his in-laws the McCains.

Anyway, the bar is set a lot lower, at about $250k. After taxes and paying mortgages and college funds I doubt that's going to leave anyone enough to hire a chauffeur.

Most docs are in the top 5% of income earners, many in the top 1%. Definitions of middle class vary but few would put them there. It's true that very few are mega-wealthy.

 

 

 

 

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 9/12/2017 at 6:52 PM, Argus said:

Depends on expenses. They're not wealthy either. Wealthy is someone who is driven around in a limousine and flies around in private jets. Guys like Morneau and his in-laws the McCains.

Anyway, the bar is set a lot lower, at about $250k. After taxes and paying mortgages and college funds I doubt that's going to leave anyone enough to hire a chauffeur.

I don't have access to tax returns but I can't see how many docs in my region would have real expenses more than 100k pa. For example, very few own expensive medical equipment. Those who choose to live in large cities could rack up a bigger bill. 

 

 

 

 

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 9/12/2017 at 6:50 PM, Argus said:

The amount they will make from this move will almost certainly be outweighed by the cost of administering it, not to mention all the doctors who leave Canada. I"ve also heard a lot of complaints on the business network that this is going to have a major impact on tech startups and push them south of the border.

And he continues to bray about how it's making the 'wealthy' pay their fair share. Doctors don't have anywhere near the wealth he does. And of course, this tax won't apply to him and his wealthy in-laws.

Tech startups compete with the whole world on price and product. Many go bust. I would listen to their arguments carefully. By contrast, doctors really have to try to end up in such a state. In Canada's system, they are unusual entrepreneurs to put it mildly. And regarding a mass medical exodus, I have been hearing about that since I arrived in Canada. 

Edited September 17, 2017 by SpankyMcFarland

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 9/13/2017 at 2:24 AM, Bonam said:

"Wealthy" is a lot better measured by net worth than by income, I think. There's lots of people making 200-500k that still don't really know how to manage money and will never be wealthy, because if they lost their job or their business did poorly for a year they'd be in real financial trouble. To me, "wealthy" means you can stop actively doing anything to earn money today, and still have enough to live a life of comfort and luxury. So for example if you own enough investments to generate about 200k/year in passive income for the rest of your life, that's what I'd classify as wealthy. 

"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen [pounds] nineteen [shillings] and six [pence], result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery."

Charles Dickens, David Copperfield

So, for retirement, three approaches:

1. Spend less. Some people retire or go part-time very early in life because they are hyper-frugal. Many are modestly wealthy but are more financially secure than the rest of us. 

https://www.mrmoneymustache.com

Many of us (including me) could only manage something like this if we were forced to.

2. Make more. Anybody with 200 k a year in retirement probably had a big income, other wealth, or a generous ps pension to start with.

3. A combination of the above. 

We all know this - simple but difficult stuff.

 

 

 

Edited September 17, 2017 by SpankyMcFarland

[Jariax]

Virtue signalling gets a bad name. If Trudeau didn't do it non-stop, the media would pay more attention to all his broken campaign promises and lack of ideas and substance. 

Fortunately, for the Trudeau dynasty, and for Liberals everywhere, a few shout-outs to women, first nations and gays, accompanied by young, good looks, is all you really need to lead this country now.