Is OP karma farming a tragedy? /r/pics debate.

[u/tommy2014015]

I'm not sure if we extended the moratorium on Vegas related drama since there's been no new recent stickied mod-posts. So I'm gonna be the piece of shit neckbeard who posts the first one. /r/pics whips itself into a frenzy after a picture of a black man who took a bullet in the neck is posted:

OP using a tragedy to get some good old karma. Reddit is fantastic

"Hey, you, black guy, look at me so i can snap a picture for karma and low key virtue signaling. yeah i know youre miserable right now and all that, blah blah blah, just fucking look at the camera so i can exploit you for karma"

The irony of this title is not lost on me

[u/ani625]

What I've found out that every user who uses "virtue signaling" is an ill-minded idiot.

[u/tommy2014015 → u/ani625]

People who swing hard-right ALWAYS do this. It's extremely disingenuous and irritating. For example, a common argument on the right is that affirmative action is racist in itself because liberals assume minorities aren't intelligent enough to succeed on their own, therefore liberals are the true racists. So the logic goes:

(premise 1) Affirmative action is a progressive program -> (premise 2) the philosophy behind affirmative action is rooted in the belief that minorities need outside help to succeed -> (premise 3) that assumption is racist = (conclusion) therefore liberals are the real racists.

I used to run into rebuttals like this all the time when I did forensics in college. The logic is seemingly sound yet it hinges on a PAPER THIN premise. That, when proven false causes that whole clusterfuck to fall apart. The faulty premise here is that affirmative action is based in the belief that minorities are dumb; no, it's because there has been an institutional disadvantage that minorities have faced which affirmative action seeks to take restitutive action against.

They do the same shit with virtue signaling, they've taken that entire idea and based it on false premises that sound solid. I just hate how right-wing keyboard warriors have this laundry list of arguments that at first-glance, by someone who just runs across them, seem convincing enough. The logical conclusion of people showing empathy is that people have empathy. That's just common fucking sense. The only thing you need to be in order to parse that out is a normal, functioning human being. Jumping to the conclusion that it's because people want to signal their virtue says more about the person saying that then the person being accused of it.

[u/tiredfaces]

Why is this dude so obsessed with karma?

[u/tommy2014015 → u/tiredfaces]

Penis envy

[u/flippyfloppityfloop]

How the fuck does anyone in there think the obviously high-quality photo of this man whose backstory is incredibly newsworthy was actually taken by a random redditor????

Here is that photo in a WaPo article, only one of SEVERAL news articles running Smith's story with That. Exact. Photo. Which was obviously taken by a photojournalist.

Fucking rubes.

[u/Sarge_Ward]

So I'm gonna be the piece of shit neckbeard who posts the first one.

Thank you for your brave service

o7

[u/storefront]

you really can't just be black and do things on the internet (reddit, mostly) without everyone thinking you're trying to make some kind of statement simply by existing

[u/xjayroox]

Everyone knows that every picture on the Internet that doesn't involve a straight white male is virtue signaling

[u/vore-enthusiast]

It took me three seconds of googling to find multiple stories on this man....why are they so angry? Did they try googling it?

(Here's one: https://www.google.com/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/las-vegas-shooting-jonathan-smith-save-30-people-bullet-neck-viral-picture-a7979951.html%3Famp )

[u/WhatHappenedToLeeds]

How can it be considered "virtue signalling" on Reddit when users are anonymous? Isn't the whole argument of people "virtue signalling" that people are trying to make themselves look better by advocating for or against something they don't actually care about? What's the point of trying to make yourself look better when no one knows who you actually are?

I think that claiming virtue signalling is being used by a lot of people, especially of a certain political viewpoint, as a defense for when they can't actually defend against what people are saying. "I'm not actually going to respond to any of what you're saying because you're just saying it to make yourself look like a good person." If you think the arguments against your viewpoints are only made by people to make themselves look good, then maybe you should think about why people wouldn't "virtue signal" your viewpoints. And, why is it so hard to wrap your head around the fact that people might actually have empathy for people and situations that don't actually impact them?

Also, it seems like "virtue signalling" is now being used instead of calling it slacktivism.