My two cents, this seems like a case where it’s better to wait for the person’s response instead of guessing.

My two cents, this seems like a comment it should be up to the OP to make instead of virtue signaling.

Yall could have gotten a serviceable answer about this topic out of ChatGPT. 2025 version of "let me google that for you"

> Can you share some ways AI has changed your life?

A question directed to GP, directly asking about their life and pointing this out is somehow virtue signalling, OK.

You can safely assume that anyone who uses “virtue signaling” unironically has nothing substantive to say.

>[People who call out performative bullshit should be ignored because they’re totally wrong and I totally mean it.]

Maybe you’re just being defensive? I’m sure he didn’t mean an attack at you personally.

It’s presumptuous of you to assume I was offended.

Accusing someone of “virtue signaling” is itself virtue signaling, just for a different in-group to use as a thought terminating cliche. It has been for decades. “Performative bullshit” is a great way to put it, just not in the way you intended.

If the OP had a substantive point to make they would have made it instead of using vague ad hominem that’s so 2008 it could be the opening track on a Best of Glenn Beck album (that’s roughly when I remember “virtue signaling” becoming a cliche).

Funny coming from someone who tells others not to speak unless asked, while no one asked them either.

From the list of virtues, which one was this signaling?

https://www.virtuesforlife.com/virtues-list/

I’d guess: Respect, consideration, authenticity, fairness.

Or should I too perhaps wait for OP to respond.

That list needs updating. Lots of things became virtuous in scenario. During Covid, fear was a virtue. You had to prove how scared you were of it, all the masks you wore because it made you “one of the good ones” to be fearful.

...you know, people can have opinions about the best way to behave outside of self-aggrandizement, even if your brain can't grasp this concept.

Fair enough. Anyway I wasn't trying to say what actually changed GP's life, I was just expressing my opinion on what video models could potentially bring as an improvement to a blind person.

>My two cents

Yikes...

I know some people will roll their eyes at this, but it's worth reflecting on how even small phrases like "my two cents" carry historical and cultural baggage. Language doesn't exist in a vacuum; it encodes assumptions about who gets to speak, whose perspectives are valued, and how we frame participation in public discourse.

The metaphor of assigning a literal monetary value to one's opinion reinforces the idea that contributions are transactional and that their "worth" is measured through an economic lens. That framing can be exclusionary, especially for people who have been historically marginalized by economic systems. It subtly normalizes a worldview where only those with enough "currency" - social, financial, or otherwise - deserve to be heard.

It's not about policing every idiom, but about being mindful of how our words might echo structures we're trying to move beyond. There are plenty of alternatives ("just my perspective" or "here's how I see it" etc.) that don't inherit that baggage. Language evolves, and we can choose to evolve it in more inclusive directions.

> The metaphor of assigning a literal monetary value to one's opinion reinforces the idea that contributions are transactional and that their "worth" is measured through an economic lens. That framing can be exclusionary, especially for people who have been historically marginalized by economic systems. It subtly normalizes a worldview where only those with enough "currency" - social, financial, or otherwise - deserve to be heard.

No. It’s acknowledging that that perhaps one’s opinion may not be as useful as somebody else’s in that moment. Which is often true!

Your first and third paragraphs are true, but they don’t apply to every bloody phrase.

people put too much weight onto words, the first lesson I learned on the internet is that words are harmless, might be deeply painful for some, but because people as my self put no weight behind them we don't even have a concept of keeping such things mindful since it never crosses our minds and it's really difficult to see if any other way even if we try to since it just seems like a bad joke.

And when I say 'it never crosses our minds' I really mean it, there's zero thoughts between thinking about a message and having it show up in a text box.

A really great example are slurs, for a lot of people they have to double take, but there's zero extra neurons fired when I read them. I guess early internet culture is to blame since all kinds of language was completely uncensored and it was very common to run into very hostile people/content.

The two cents are not literally monetary - your opinion is literally the two cents. You're contributing your understanding to the shared pot of understanding and that's represented by putting money into the pot, showing you have skin in the game. It's contributing to a larger body of knowledge by putting your small piece in - the phrases you suggest don't have that context behind them and in my opinion are worse for it. The beauty of the phrase is because the two cents are your opinion, everyone has enough, because everyone can have an opinion.

The lens through which you're analyzing the phrase is coloring how you see it negatively, and the one I'm using is doing the opposite. There is no need to change the phrase, just how it's viewed, I think.

guessing that being able to hear a description of what the camera is seeing (basically a special case of a video) in any circumstances is indeed life changing if you're blind...? take a picture through the window and ask what's the commotion? door closed outside that's normally open - take a picture, tell me if there's a sign on it? etc.