How does that work at a large company that's already bureaucratic? Where I work, I still have to open tickets for everything. I still have to wait a long time for new equipment. How does a union make that worse if I have to wait for cogs to turn anyway?
I also would like more realistic examples of bureaucracy, because yours are frankly bullshit. Yeah yeah the MTA is bad sure, and I've interacted with unions before that exemplified their stereotypes. But if you really think employees would suddenly not be able to plug in a monitor or move it across the room because there's a union, I think you're completely incorrect.
> I also would like more realistic examples of bureaucracy, because yours are frankly bullshit.
These were real examples that infuriated everyone. I also think they're bullshit. That's what made them infuriating.
> How does that work at a large company that's already bureaucratic?
It effectively doubles the amount of bureaucracy, because it adds to the list of work that requires a ticket.
> I still have to wait a long time for new equipment.
Do the examples in the comment above currently require a ticket? Plugging in a computer? Carrying a monitor one cube over? Grabbing some chairs from another office? I suspect not.
You suspect not, but you'd be wrong :) Those things do require a ticket. We can't install our own equipment, only IT is allowed to do that. Pretty strict about connecting peripherals and USBs too.
> I could have done that, but I didn't - because I'm not sufficiently full of shit.
It sounds like you're disparaging the art (and in fact the artists for producing it) because you think it's not sufficiently technically difficult. It also sounds like you believe the artists are trying to present it as more than it is. But tell me if I've misunderstood you.
This is a very antagonistic attitude. You're approaching art with an adversarial mindset that only recognizes it if it's something nontrivial. I don't think anyone is trying to bullshit you - art is just subjective.
For many people, what's more important than the competence is the originality. Not even necessarily the originality of the thing itself, but of the meta surrounding it. In that sense, plain white canvas in a museum is actually pretty original. It's certainly less derivative than a lot of the highly competent also-rans who painted the same scenes in the same (highly proficient) styles in the same time period. Moreover, it made you think. You didn't have a positive reaction to it, but then (as any artist would tell you) art doesn't restrict itself to positivity :)
Now with that in mind, let's circle back to your other statement:
> You're supposed to have some kind of ability and that ability shouldn't have to be defended by pointless platitudes.
It seems like they do have an ability, it's just not an ability you respect because your definition of art is more narrow than theirs. And that's okay! No one is forced to deeply appreciate all forms of art. But the way you're disparaging this kind of modern art is a perfect example of the middlebrow dismissal that's already been brought up in this thread.
People are not full of shit just because you don't appreciate the (highly subjective) things they do. The triviality of many modern art pieces is part of a broader context which your criticism completely fails to capture.
> because you think it's not sufficiently technically difficult
Yes and no. I can find beauty in - or otherwise appreciate - simplistic creations as well. For example, a lot of contemporary photography is very little about technical skills and very much about selection, timing, subject and setting. I can find that highly engaging. But yes, there has got to be some thought behind it other than that it's supposedly "unique".
> Moreover, it made you think.
Lots of things make me think. I believe this is a simultaneously pretentious and simplistic approach to defining art.
> meta (...) original (...) derivative
What about beautiful? Emotional? Timeless and with lasting meaning?
The kind of meta-art "commenting" on what art is or trying be "unique" that seems to make up the bulk of today's production is more than a century old by now.
> bullshit
Quoting this last because this is the core of my reasoning. The majority of the contemporary art world has long since lost any kind of connection to what's worthwhile, beautiful, thoughtful, insightful or interesting. It's a massive bullshit machine, propped up by nothing but a lot of pseudo-intellectual meta-reasoning about made-up abstract concepts commenting on themselves.
Many are provoked and angered by people getting famous for participating in reality shows or exposing their lives on Instagram. I can find the concept absurd, but it doesn't bother me as such. It's easy to ignore and if they can monetize their fame, good for them. That's between them and their audience.
As soon as something is considered art, on the other hand, it's considered to be of such significance that it warrants not only recognition, but also for example public funding, the interest of academia and a self-evident spot in any public place. It demands to be taken seriously, and people in positions of power will comply, no matter how inane it is. It's the naked emperor, if you will: it permeates society in ways that are systemically upheld by people who, when asked the question, probably couldn't explain what's actually good or beautiful or interesting about it, yet I'm expected to accept it at face value. For every blank canvas exhibited, there is one carrying true beauty that is left ignored. That bothers me copiously, however much I wish it didn't.
I appreciate the cogency of your broader point, but please reconsider using the terminology "virtue signaling."
When one person accuses another of virtue signaling, even implicitly, there are typically only two possibilities:
1. They hold such a cynical worldview that it's reasonable and coherent to criticize someone else for attempting to publicly advocate for what they honestly believe to be right, or
2. They believe the other person is not being honest in their advocacy, and more importantly that they should call the person's integrity into question by opening that up for discussion.
When you label another individual's behavior as virtue signaling, you forcibly shift the focus of discussion on that person's behavior and identity rather than the thing they're advocating. This can have a chilling effect on people voicing their opinions with honesty and authenticity. Likewise if an idea if worth critiquing, it should merit criticism on its own without calling into question its advocates' motives.
I don't mean to pick on you in particular, I'm just calling out the use of the term.
3. Advocacy that mainly serves to make the advocate sound virtuous rather than substantively address the difficult aspects of a difficult tradeoff or help to wisely deploy resources in a way that will make progress on a problem.
It's distinct from your 1 in that it accepts that people can exist who legitimately care about improving the world.
It's distinct from your 2 in that it doesn't assert the person's advocacy is dishonest (or otherwise not heartfelt), only that their specific contributions are unhelpful or present a bad framing.
Example of a useful difference that 3 highlights:
Virtue signaling: "I just think we should help everyone wherever we can." -> suggests that the speaker is particularly noble while also setting a herculean standard for how to live one's life. (Really? Every single moment?)
Not virtue signaling: "As a rule of thumb, you should give about 10% of your net income to charitable causes, since this is historically feasible, and mainly would force you to cut back in ways that have disproportionately high utility for others. Any more than that is nice, but is more than I can legitimately ask." -> recognizes upper bounds in what they expect out of others, and what might be feasible or excessive.
Naturally, most advocacy lasts more than two sentences, but that gives the general idea.
I feel like the term virtue signaling is used in a way that almost always implies some implication of insinceerity, i.e. they are doing it for popularity/upvotes/etc and not out of moral concern. As such i agree with the other poster that it is in essence an ad hominem, although usually its not solely an ad hominem but combined with some argument that the advocacy is superficial or ineffective. (Although typically on the internet its a pretty weak argument most of the time)
To me, writing off a stance as "virtue signaling" is the same kind of laziness as writing off a stance as coming from a "position of privilege": it may well be true, but rational debate requires assuming your debate partners came to their position through reasoned thought and honestly hold it.
Rational debate is not the virtue signaler's goal or means. They just want to flaunt a "holier than thou" attitude while actually caring zero about the topic. Demanding that those targeted by virtual signaler's passive-agressive's attacks must not point out the virtue signaler's inherent dishonesty is like complaining that the targets must passively serve the the virtue signaler's desires without a hint of rational or objective thought, as if the only acceptable outcome of a virtue signaler's attack is getting the target to publicly recognize how the virtue signaler is so virtuous and that the world should follow his teachings, no matter how empty and inconsequent and self-aggrandizing they might be.
Honestly I think the real chilling effect is from internet people patrolling an monitoring everyone's use of language and making sure people are only saying the "correct" words and ideas.
When someone suggests an action whose visibility is so far out of proportion to its efficacy, this should call their integrity into question. Whether consciously or otherwise, they are proposing to take advantage of the movement for their own personal benefit; we should view them with the same skepticism as someone suggesting that group funds should be used to renovate the meeting place, which they just happen to own.
I agree with your two possibilities (and there are more). What I'm not clear about is why you object to the use of the phrase for either of those reasons.
1. If someone genuinely believes something absurd to be right and reasonable, why are they above criticism? Ridicule is a very valuable and effective tool in maintaining social cohesion and resisting subversive methods that use absurd arguments that are unworthy of or incapable of being reasoned against.
2. This is far more straight forward. If we genuinely believe someone to be disingenuous in their advocacy of the absurd, should they not be called out on it? What responsibility do we have to earnestly engage with deliberate subversion? Identifying it and raising awareness of bad actors and trolls is a valid defence, potentially saving good people a lot of time, money, and heartache.
I'll conclude by saying that I believe your attempt to dissuade people from using "virtue signalling" to identify these behaviours is, itself, virtue signalling. I'm quite sure it would serve your sociopolitical objectives very well if all these people 'in the way' would stop noticing such behaviours.
It doesn't seem like you are objecting to the term so much as the idea it represents. If the original poster instead substituted in the meaning of that term, e.g. if they said instead "This is taking insincerly aligning yourself with socially progressive causes in a trivial fashion in order to gain social standing while avoiding taking a stand on things that matter,to an extreme"* I assume you would still want to object? If so you should object to what they are saying not how.
*The term virtue signaling seems to be used differently by different people, so not sure if that was a fair substitution of definition.
Two Sigma regularly pays people 12 - 24 months to do nothing after they leave in lieu of them taking an offer with anothing trading firm, if they were working in strategy or research roles.
That is because the actual stipulation is for there to be a confidentiality or fiduciary agreement. As shorthand, "illicitly obtained" could therefore be replaced with, "illicitly appropriated."
On its own, material and nonpublic information is fine to trade with. Likewise not all insider trading is illegal; most of it is explicitly legal and mundane.
No, material and nonpublic is necessary but insufficient for the trading to be illegal. It must also break a confidentiality agreement, fiduciary duty or specific law pertaining to the way the information is released to the person and their duties thereof.
This is to say that it's illegal for congresspeople to trade on material, nonpublic information because there is now a law explicitly governing it. If they (or anyone) develop the material, nonpublic information through original research, it's not illegal.
Read the SEC documentation on insider trading directly. Barring that, Matt Levine gives accessible (and entertaining) which is informative for a lay audience.
That strikes me as a short tolerance for feeling something is ruined. He appropriately highlighted the real time
estimate of the more involved work in a footnote. He didn't literally mean all of the work was one day, he's trying to convey a larger point about outsized engineering returns from comparatively small person-hours of work.
Were you able to move past this to read the rest of the article? Because it's a very good article.
I did go back and read the rest of it, and I do agree that it's pretty good overall. For someone going into detail about the mistaken capitalization of a variable name (which I appreciated), the "one day" bit still stands out as oddly hand-wavy and boastful (and, as the opening remark, I would argue it's pretty important for setting the tone).
If that point needed to be made (and I don't think it really did in this article, that's not the focus), it could have been done more carefully.
