‘Virtue Signaling’ Isn’t the Problem. Not Believing One Another Is

‘Virtue Signaling’ Isn’t the Problem. Not Believing One Another Is.

nytimes.com/2017/08/08/magazine/virtue-signaling-isnt-the-problem-not-believing-one-another-is.html

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.fo/fTJ0g
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

I will surely click on an article that you had so little interest in you can't even summarize

Ny times is fucking garbage

hope she aborted it anyway

learn to read fag

I honestly find that tweet pretty funny.

Stop being such a fag, OP

archive.fo/fTJ0g

Should i move to jackson mississippi?

...

>the pic

is she joji's sister?

?

D o xx x x x x ed

4k what?

Learn to archive, libshit.

learn to kys you redneck fuck

Yes or no

well yes, when you oversaturate discourse with a buzzword, it becomes meaningless

4k HD Russia Today

...

Its not a buzzword fag

>virtue is a buzzword
everything except the ending is right in that article.
>"accusations of ‘‘virtue signaling’’ are, more than anything, a way of walking out on that argument and dismissing it altogether — a quick and easy solution for those moments when engaging and listening, agreeing or disagreeing, seem too hard, too challenging, too personal, too dangerous"
>"seem too hard, too challenging, too personal, too dangerous"
HHAHAHA who the fuck wrote this shit? Arguing with mental ill people about were they can piss and a take a dump is apparently too challenging, too personal and too dangerous. Its not like its just a utter waste of time.

>But of course many people do care, about all sorts of things that you or I might disagree with.
but that's wrong

>I'm unemployed
>I like to travel

Who whose dime?

>The Daily Mail, a newspaper known for its own tabloid nativism and xenophobia.