So complaining about sanctimony is itself sanctimonious?
> It is inherently hypocritical, besides.
How so? Hypocrisy is when someone tells others to do something they don't do themselves.
> Saying, "this is good, so I do it" is fundamentally more meaningful than, "this is good, so you should do it". The latter is sanctimony.
Not really. Sanctimony is the excessive parading of a supposed virtue. Telling someone to do something is not in itself sanctimony.
Anyway, my original point was that hypocrisy and sanctimony are irrelevant and a distraction in any consideration of morality. For those of us raised Catholic, they're what we'd call venal sins, minor and forgivable. They simply don't matter, but for some reason people online treat them as the equivalent of virginal purity tests, and cherish them with a zeal that would put a village mullah to shame.
The short aphorisms of Marcus Aurelius are invaluable, in my opinion, in considering morality. "Of each thing", he says, "ask what it is in itself". But in our modern world where we've convinced ourselves we're busy as we bustle about with a thousand pointless activities at once, the thoughtful consideration that the old Roman emperor urges seems very far away. And besides, they'd probably accuse him of virtue signalling.
Also, that only the sins since your last confession, or communion, or something, count in any way at all.
No idea which if any of the above is true. Or what, exactly, would be meant by a "virginal purity test".
But...
>> Complaining about virtue signaling is sanctimony
>So complaining about sanctimony is itself sanctimonious?
No. You are tying yourself in knots; which is your privilege. Please don't entangle me in them.
No, a sin is either venal or mortal. The intent of the sinner doesn't enter into it.
> Also, that only the sins since your last confession, or communion, or something, count in any way at all.
If you confess a sin and ask forgiveness, it's forgiven. Your slate is wiped clean.
> Or what, exactly, would be meant by a "virginal purity test".
Simply that many in social media demand a level of purity in thought and action from commenters and other writers that rivals in its puritanical zeal the worst excesses of the most ignorant village mullah.
> No. You are tying yourself in knots; which is your privilege. Please don't entangle me in them.
But if virtue signalling is sanctimony, a point which you have not refuted, and complaining about virtue signalling is sanctimony, then complaining about sanctimony is indeed sanctimonious. Any entanglement is of your own making.
We may contrast actual virtue signaling with, e.g., Gwyneth Paltrow scams, which the ill-equipped may confuse with it.