Just saw this thread as I rarely check 2+2. I don't have anything great to contribute, just understanding how you feel. I'm struggling with these thoughts for the past few years (basically as I started playing more weak players and making more money) and looking for the way out. Rationalizing/donating/etc. helps me very little so I think the only correct way is to completely stop playing. Problem is that I even struggle with the thought that my future will be built on other people's money.

Yeah, that just shows that the people who wrote those shows didn't understand anything about poker.
I don't think there has ever been a real game of poker that wasn't table stakes. It doesn't even work any other way, as the richest player would win every hand.

Technically, you can play poker without playing for money, it's just very boring.

So again, pretty much the same as golf.

I don't say this to be nasty, but I have a serious question. Do you have these ethical concerns when a stock you own goes up because of layoffs or weapons sales or destroying a river? You get the idea. People who play poker are making a free choice to be there and can quit forever if they choose. Of course there are problem gamblers and that should be addressed. But I have little patience for those you cry about the ethical issue of poker while not losing sleep when Joe in the next door cubicle gets laid off just when he needs health insurance the most.

Do what feels right and makes you happy. If you're unhappy taking people's money, then poker is probably not for you long term. Being comfortable with losing money/taking other people's money are two critical traits of any poker player.

Exactly. Very sick of the virtue signaling going on when people are very selective about what they "care" about and what they turn a blind eye to.

I'm no golfer but while poker is purely a gambling game I'd think golf is way more of a gambling game than something like basketball. I can't remember playing basketball for money or know if friends going to play basketball for money. But I've heard of a lot of people who gamble on golf.

This comes down to don’t hate the player hate the game.

You can talk about the ethics of drug dealers getting people hooked/addicted, casinos offering unbeatable games and baiting people in to take every dollar to their name. But we can’t hold ourselves responsible for others bad choices in life

I have ethical concerns about companies who engage in behaviour such as unauthorised weapons sales or mistreatment of workers. In fact, much pressure has been placed on superannuation/investment funds that hold stock in such companies; in Australia, for instance, the big supermarket chains have been encouraged by clients to divest from slot-machines venues that profit from problem gambling. People these days are wiling to act upon their ethical concerns and invest elsewhere. So the "perceived hypocrisy" alluded to here is not always hypocritical: the fact is that many are able to identify unethical corporate behaviour and act accordingly.

Can you explain what you mean by "virtue signalling"? Are you saying people pretend to be virtuous when they are not? Do you even believe in the concept of virtuous behavior? I'm "sick of" people not having the "guts" to take a moral position on behaviour that often results in social harm. I'm happy to "signal" that message whenever appropriate. Sure, there are moments when my own behaviour may seem hypocritical or contradictory (e.g. profiting from poker), but at least I'm willing to acknowledge this fact and look for ways of softening the social impact of problem gambling.

borg23, I dont come from the golf world. But I got dragged into it a bit by my friends from Florida, including my sisters husband who was a pro golfer.

This requires some nuance and I am an imperfect messenger in regards to golf.

First, let me say that there is a certain kind of person who has a 1 in a 100 risk profile. As Doyle wouldve said I like my life to have wins and losses. And most people with this risk profile, it ends badly for them. Well not neccessarily bad, it drepends on how you look at things and some people with this risk profile just get rich, especially those with higher iqs who overcome themselves.

But certainly those with an increased risk profile might be attracted to golf. Mostly because its relatively healthy- you go outside, can play without betting on anything but if you need to you can always find bets. Its a comfortable place for a gambler and an understandable place for a gambler to be - it rounds things out nicely. Saying were gonna go golfing and then maybe play cards is something people like Warren Buffett might do. Saying were gonna chase the dragon bet in baccarat, well… it just doesnt have the same respectability to it. In terms of morals I largely agree with chillrob on this issue. I also think a stripper pretending to like a rich guy is a good analogy because I think thats another good game that is also not inherently immoral.
Nevertheless, there is a meaning to what is and isnt gambling. Thats often vague, especially in the minds of those with a high risk profile because anything could be considered gambling. But, insofar as the term gambling means anything games like baccarat, video poker, craps are definitly gambling and games like football, chess, and golf are not.
Its interesting where you legally and ethically set the line. Poker, always needs a consideration( even to use virtual or “play money” and has an element of chance that in the short term is quite substantial in a way that is not true of golf. It’s funny because I would say poker is the least like gambling game that is surely gambling, or maybe it could be considered the most profound gambling game. More people bet on the nfl than golf. Most people who golf are not gamblers and most students of the game dont intend to be gamblers simple as. But its a pleasant place for a gambler to be.

Take gambling from a problem gambler they'll just become addicted to something else. Virtue signaling is simply eempty talk and gestures with no action like the business owner with a BLM sticker in their widow who still has 90 percent white employees

Also virtue signalers are primarily concerned about making themselves feel good and letting the general public know how virtuous they are

With that mindset you shouldn't work at all - the goal of any business is to maximize profits and they do that by fleecing the consumer. Why is it ok for Apple to make an IPhone for 10 dollars and charge 800 for it? Why do health insurance companies charge insane rates yet know for every dollar you pay them they pay out 1-2 cents? The one good thing about poker is we all know the rules of the game and you're free to leave at any time - the struggling family must pay for health care, groceries, and everything else that has skyrocketed in price over the past couple years and cannot "leave" like you can in poker. Are there are addicts that ruin their lives due to poker and other forms of gambling? Of course but that's their personal decision - if it's not poker they'll ruin it through another avenue.

I found this summary in The Conversation published in September 2020 (https://theconversation.com/virtue-s...all-bad-145546):

"'Virtue signalling' joins other right-wing slurs like libtards, bleeding hearts, snowflakes, and social justice warriors.
It is a cousin of accusations of political correctness. In their apparent sermonising and moral outrage against racism, sexual harassment, climate change and more, progressives are viewed as emotional and weak, or accused of being sanctimonious. Ironically, wielding the term sometimes serves as virtue signalling in itself. By calling out virtue signalling, the speaker publicly claims the moral high ground. The term is often used as an ad hominem attack — a charge that dismisses an argument based on the character of the presenter, not the argument itself. Does it matter if an individual or company signals virtue if it’s in the name of a good cause? Indeed, it can be argued that signalling a commitment to specific values helps moral discourse."

The term makes more sense to me now.

IMO there's nothing inherently wrong about gambling, and you can't save people from themselves. If someone is gambling with money they can't afford to lose in a casino, or if they are going into massive debt to finance a $200,000 car they can't afford, is there really much of a difference?

People can be just as addicted to consumerism as they are to poker. Is the salesperson selling them the car unethical?

I wonder if the people saying poker is unethical would feel differently if they were playing exclusively with ultra-wealthy individuals who can easily afford the losses with zero tangible effect on their lives?

Poker's not the problem. It's self-destructive behavior that is the issue. It can manifest in countless ways.

Now is there predatory behavior within the poker ecosystem that crosses the line into being unethical? Sure. But just making money playing poker isn't the issue. We can't be expected to verify someone's income and net worth to rubber stamp that it's ethical before we stack them.

Lol that article was clearly written by some woke person. Yes it is a problem when some company or individual virtue signals, The last line of that article speaks to a big problem I have with left at least the social media left. They just wanna talk they don't want to solve any problems. For example the solution to your problem is simple. Playing poker makes you feel guilty? Just quit playing poker. Calling out someone's BS is not claiming the moral high ground. Virtue signaling isn't about calling attention to an issue it's about calling attention to one's self

Virtue signalling is for the most part right wing people letting you know (signalling) that they are right wing (virtue).

Occasionally they are letting you know (signalling) something else (typically some other virtue, or lack thereof, which to them is virtuous in itself).

Usually a good phrase to completely rule that person out from sane discourse

Someone not having your opinion = rule that person out from sane discourse

It's always the others, who are insane, right?

From leadership down to the sheeple... USA #1...
Now gtfo to the politics forum, where you belong.
No politics in NVG, ffs!

People flying around in private jets (and owning mega corps hurting the environment) while lecturing the little guy about global warming is a much better example.

Was written by a research fellow at an Australian university. Are all academics are equivalent to "some woke person"? Placing someone in a nebulous category---virtue signaller/woke person---is a convenient, lazy way of dismissing them and their message.

There is a key difference between a psychological problem relating to guilt and a genuine ethical dilemma. An ethical dilemma can generate guilt for sure. But simply quitting the activity that generates the ethical dilemma doesn't mean the dilemma ceases to exist. FWIW playing poker doesn't make me feel guilty, in general, although there are times where I question how players with gambling problems are targeted in a predatory manner. I also have issues with not helping those are suffering from an addiction, but acknowledge that I'm often not in a position to help them. If you want to describe me as a virtue signaller/woke person for thinking this way then so be it; I'm confident most will see through the pejorative veneer of this tired language and instead focus on the major issue the thread was setup to discuss.

You are indeed a snowflake if you think those "slurs" are slurs. I have every right to call you out on virtue signaling if I feel that you're pretending to care or selectively caring about something when it makes you look good or benefits you. Based on this logic, the word "racist" is a left-wing slur and is an ad hominem attack when someone points out legitimate issues like mass immigration that should be a cause for major concern.

^^^ A lot of douchebag-signaling going on in this thread.

^^^ Zero clue how to form an argument against a well known fact = Call the other guy a douchebag!

USA#1

Do you guys even realize that you are more polarized than a 5x pot shove on a flush river?