Scotland's proposed new Hate Crime Bill would pretty much take care of that angle.[0]
>Scotland’s proposed hate crime bill will penalise anyone whipping up hatred against “protected groups.” That includes people making “insulting” remarks within their own home, Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf has revealed.
We've already seen many examples of how pwople's phone data has been used in prosecutions. How long before someone is taken to court for an un-PC remark which they made in the [supposed] privacy of their own home, but which was then picked up by their Alexa, transcribed at Amazon HQ and then reported to the authorities as a "hate crime"?
I know using the phrase "virtue signalling" tends to merit a bucket load of downvotes here on HN. But I really do think we've arrived at a farcical situation in the West [especially in Europe] where legislators are falling over themselves to draft ever more idiotic laws intended to show how much more "liberal" and "progressive" they are than the next guy.
With, ironically, the consequence that these same laws are actually making society less free and more controlled, as people are becoming too frightened to express opinions that don't conform, for fear of being branded a bigot / racist / sexist/ <alphabetti-spaghetti>phobe
Ironic that so few people in the West can see that we're mirroring exactly the same kind of 'dissenting viewpoint not tolerated' society that we used to deride the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe for and continue to condemn China for today.
> I know using the phrase "virtue signalling" tends to merit a bucket load of downvotes here on HN.
Perhaps because it is an unfalsifiable claim. If someone does something that they think is good, and someone else notices, were they "virtue signalling"? In the case of public figures, especially legislators, many of their actions are broadcast to the public, so condemning "virtue signalling" is like condemning virtue itself, or merely stating that you disagree on which acts are virtuous (as is expected in a society where we are free to disagree).
> legislators are falling over themselves to draft ever more idiotic laws intended to show how much more "liberal" and "progressive" they are than the next guy.
I imagine that legislators think "Violent people often have a history of saying bigoted things, but none of my friends say things that I think are bigoted, so locking up the people who say bigoted things will only have a positive outcome on society." Unfortunately there are enough people who can't imagine any bad consequences of such a law (even to themselves, eventually) that there is a genuine democratic mandate for it in some places.
I think it becomes "virtue signalling" when you go beyond acceptance of difference and enshrinement of equality, to the point where you actually seem to be suggesting that rights and feelings of the minority sections of society which you are trying to protect, trump* those of the majority.
If you think that these legislators are being disingenuous and are hiding a conscious aim of trying to hurt people in majority groups then perhaps we need a new term like "virtue washing", i.e. using empathy for one group to mask a harmful agenda against a different group.
I personally don't believe that most supporters of such policies are consciously motivated by a desire to harm those in majority groups, as many of these supporters are themselves in majority groups. They probably just don't think that the policies will affect them, or realise that the policies could backfire and be used against minorities.
Reminds me of the discussion about the big tech companies filtering content...
"Last October, Facebook, Google and Twitter were asked by Hawaii Senator Mazie Hizono to draw up a “mission statement” to “prevent the foment of discord.”"
