Revoking Privileges from those Voicing Opinions Contrary to Yours

Status
Not open for further replies.
A team that diverts company resources, capital and time away from their core business of being competitive and delivering service to its customers and profits to shareholders..
The prevaling opinion these days both in customer land and in most corporates is that you have to do both, make money but also behave as a responsible corporate citizen. The jury is out on whether the attention on corporate citizenship increases or detracts from profits but generally the view is that done well it can increase and it certainly can lead to increased engagement from staff and customers.
 
Last edited:
This QF initiative just confirms for me that they are so distracted by non-business-related issues like "social justice" that they don't pay enough attention to improving the quality of their products and service delivery...

The decision to revoke the senator's membership - if it ever comes to that - may well be a decision that is very much 'core business'. The title of the thread doesn't really reflect the issue when speaking about the senator. It's not voicing a 'contrary opinion', it's making comments that are considered vile and upsetting to the vast majority of people. Removing that person from your lounge means providing a space that is calm and peaceful to others. That potentially retains revenue rather than driving it to the competition (core business).
 
As I understand it - Qantas were talking about removing the Senators access to the CL only, I didn't see anything about preventing the Senator from flying Qantas or using any of their other lounges if he is eligible for lounge access as per any other passenger by class of service or status.
 
Last edited:
I’m not sure about the assimilate bit. Worked hard, yes. Integrate with existing population? Not for the first generation who lived in the same suburbs and didn’t learn English. Lots of non English speaking nonnas around. It took to the Second and third generations to get real assimilation going.

And even the subsequent generations still identify as greek, italian, Scottish, Irish or other origin. Anyone who claims that various groups assimilated don't seem to see reality.
 
As I understand it - Qantas were talking about removing the Senators access to the CL only, I didn't see anything about preventing the Senator from flying Qantas or using any of their other lounges if he is eligible for lounge access as per any other passenger by class of service or status.

So, in effect, just more virtue signalling from QF.
 
So, in effect, just more virtue signalling from QF.

If Qantas don't follow through and actually uninvite (?) the senator then yes - this could be described as virtue signalling. But as the saying goes ..."The standard you walk past is the standard you accept." Seems that there's more than just dress standards in the CL.

In fact I would be surprised if there wasn't a whole team looking at CL "membership" and making adjustments for various reasons, but they felt it necessary for virtue signalling to make this one public.
 
My point (as per the text I quoted) was that they were considering revoking CL privilege only, not lounge access generally. Maybe so that our "elite" betters would not have to rub shoulders with someone with unapproved opinions. Really just virtue signalling.
 
The Frequent Flyer Concierge team takes the hard work out of finding reward seat availability. Using their expert knowledge and specialised tools, they'll help you book a great trip that maximises the value for your points.

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

My point (as per the text I quoted) was that they were considering revoking CL privilege only, not lounge access generally. Maybe so that our "elite" betters would not have to rub shoulders with someone with unapproved opinions. Really just virtue signalling.

Lounge access is a defined benefit with published qualification criteria (which I'm sure the senator meets). CL is an invitation/discretionary benefit, so they can bestow/withdraw access to whoever they like.

And you seem to be using the term "virtue signalling" as if it is the world's worst behaviour. I disagree - particularly when it comes to bigoted idiots. They should be rejected by all and sundry by whatever methods are available and legal.
 
And you seem to be using the term "virtue signalling" as if it is the world's worst behaviour. I disagree - particularly when it comes to bigoted idiots. They should be rejected by all and sundry by whatever methods are available and legal.

The term 'virtue signalling' has become like 'first world problem'. A phrase you use when you want to put someone down, but are too lazy to rebut their claims. :)

It's use needs to be quarantined!
 
Sponsored Post

Struggling to use your Frequent Flyer Points?

Frequent Flyer Concierge takes the hard work out of finding award availability and redeeming your frequent flyer or credit card points for flights.

Using their expert knowledge and specialised tools, the Frequent Flyer Concierge team at Frequent Flyer Concierge will help you book a great trip that maximises the value for your points.

The term 'virtue signalling' has become like 'first world problem'. A phrase you use when you want to put someone down, but are too lazy to rebut their claims. :)

It's use needs to be quarantined!

Interesting how you've taken the very essence of what "virtue signalling" is i.e. the lazy fact-free thinking of people who try to put someone down (and appear morally superior in the process), and somehow convoluted that to suggest the lazy, fact-free part is actually a fault of those who call out the actual virtue signallers themselves. IMO such a convolution isn't a fair interpretation at all.

I think you overlook the ability of the "average punter" to understand the nuances of virtue signalling and recognise it without needing to have every instance of it explained or demonstrated to them in detail ad nauseam.

Like it or not, "virtue signalling" is a great descriptor which has, through necessity, become part of the moden lexicon. Most people can recognise a virtue signaller in an instant - picture someone (usually, but not exclusively, from the political left) shouting down (abusing?) anyone who doesn't share their views and calling them either islamophobic, racist, homophobic, or abusers of women (or maybe all of the above at the same time) just because they don't share their views. Worse still, virtue signallers not only don't bother with reasoned facts themselves; they also wilfully dismiss the reasoned facts of others and their right to hold different opinions.

If pointing out the shortcomings of virtue signallers is a put down, then it's an unavoidable consequence of the behaviour. One thing is sure, the term 'virtue signalling" is here to stay simply because there is an increasing need for it! ;)
 
Interesting how you've taken the very essence of what "virtue signalling" is i.e. the lazy fact-free thinking of people who try to put someone down (and appear morally superior in the process), and somehow convoluted that to suggest the lazy, fact-free part is actually a fault of those who call out the actual virtue signallers themselves. IMO such a convolution isn't a fair interpretation at all.

I think you overlook the ability of the "average punter" to understand the nuances of virtue signalling and recognise it without needing to have every instance of it explained or demonstrated to them in detail ad nauseam.

Like it or not, "virtue signalling" is a great descriptor which has, through necessity, become part of the moden lexicon. Most people can recognise a virtue signaller in an instant - picture someone (usually, but not exclusively, from the political left) shouting down (abusing?) anyone who doesn't share their views and calling them either islamophobic, racist, homophobic, or abusers of women (or maybe all of the above at the same time) just because they don't share their views. Worse still, virtue signallers not only don't bother with reasoned facts themselves; they also wilfully dismiss the reasoned facts of others and their right to hold different opinions.

If pointing out the shortcomings of virtue signallers is a put down, then it's an unavoidable consequence of the behaviour. One thing is sure, the term 'virtue signalling" is here to stay simply because there is an increasing need for it! ;)

Nah. Calling out folk as 'virtue signalling' is just smug posturing. Odd that it has become indistinguishable from the behaviour it originally tried to call out.
 
My point (as per the text I quoted) was that they were considering revoking CL privilege only, not lounge access generally. Maybe so that our "elite" betters would not have to rub shoulders with someone with unapproved opinions. Really just virtue signalling.

I think the bigger issue is how that translates in reality. If the Senator is barred from the CL, can he realistically use any other lounge with the 'common folk'? Would he be able to have 'quiet enjoyment' (without someone abusing him). If he is causing a commotion, he may be asked to leave the other lounge as well. This may effectively bar him from all lounges, not just the CL.
 
I think the bigger issue is how that translates in reality. If the Senator is barred from the CL, can he realistically use any other lounge with the 'common folk'? Would he be able to have 'quiet enjoyment' (without someone abusing him). If he is causing a commotion, he may be asked to leave the other lounge as well. This may effectively bar him from all lounges, not just the CL.
Good - the germ deserves it!
 
Virtue signalling is voicing the words and not following through with actions. I don’t see that calling that out is smug posturing.
 
Virtue signalling is voicing the words and not following through with actions. I don’t see that calling that out is smug posturing.
It can also mean publicising words and taking actions - actions that really do little overall.
 
Nah. Calling out folk as 'virtue signalling' is just smug posturing. Odd that it has become indistinguishable from the behaviour it originally tried to call out.

Every article I have seen exposing the behaviour of virtue signallers has been prefaced by factual evidence so it's disingenuous (besides being "fact free") to suggest that making such comments is "indistinguishable" from those of the moralistic poseur virtue signallers themselves.

By substantiating nothing of what you assert, you are, in fact, using the exact modus operandi employed by virtue signallers - don't think about what you say, just saying it is enough.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Enhance your AFF viewing experience!!

From just $6 we'll remove all advertisements so that you can enjoy a cleaner and uninterupted viewing experience.

And you'll be supporting us so that we can continue to provide this valuable resource :)


Sample AFF with no advertisements? More..
Back
Top