> ranking virtue signalling over monetary gain

I'll cop to not being completely au fait with current right-wing rhetoric, but I thought a core part of "virtue signalling" (insofar as it might actually exist beyond "position I disagree with", which your post suggests it might not) was that it was low-effort / low-cost. In other words, no action where the alternative is non-trivial monetary gain could be virtue signalling.

Between this and Bray's arrest for environment activism previously, I'd propose that this is not "virtue signalling" but simply being virtuous.

In pretty much every case, "virtue signalling" is code for "this person is being virtuous, and I don't like it".

right but there is a rhetorical undercurrent of this person doesn't really believe in this virtuous thing they are doing, and is thus a hypocrite. Because being a hypocrite is one of the top sins of our culture.

Of course it is weird because the person doing the accusation of hypocrisy is actually against the virtuous act, and is thus for people not believing in the virtue.

It's a weird rhetorical trick that sounds sort of unhinged the more you hear it.

I've heard the same accusation being made by minorities, LGBT, women, etc. especially in the context of someone else, typically not from the less privileged group in that context, who is abusing the moral concern to shut down discussion rather than actually trying to help. One of my friends, as somewhat of an activist on these issues (I'm purposely staying vague for anonymity), has gotten exactly that type of vitriol from people who obviously see themselves as "woke". They got hit with some pretty nasty stuff that was pretty transparently moralistic character assassination rather than an honest attempt at disagreement. I'm impressed that they're able to continue working on these issues despite the crap they put up with from people who are supposedly on the same side of the issues.

To put things into context, I hear/see the above issue orders of magnitude less often than people parroting right wing talking points, but in the cases where I think the accusation is well-founded, I don't think it's about hypocrisy at its root. I think it's about being disingenuous. Then again we may be using two words to mean the same thing.

What "same accusation", exactly?

Also "I don't know what I'm talking about".

Russian bots are a thing, you know.

> I thought a core part of "virtue signalling" … was that it was low-effort / low-cost

Huh. I’m sure I was introduced to the idea with the exact opposite. It was described as the moral equivalent of Rolex watches: pointlessly expensive if considered as a timepiece, and ownership of a fake has negative consequences.

But I agree with the general point that most of the people who use the phrase — and all who use it as an insult — do so without self awareness. It’s pretty much universal in human behaviour.

I always find it amusing that people who decry "virtual signalling" seem to be oblivious to the fact that they too are virtue signalling by doing so.

"Virtue signaling" and "white knighting" are infuriating formulas because they can be used to dismiss anybody doing a morally good thing without any argument. Reducing your carbon footprint? Trying to be nice to other people? Taking a moral stance on anything? Somebody tells you that the way you act is pretty bad? Nice try, you virtue-signaler! It's utilitarianism pushed to the limit, only actions matter, ethic and morals are for poseurs.

If you think people are being hypocritical then try to come up with a factual argument about why it may be, assuming by default that any moral stance is necessarily empty posturing is intellectually bankrupt and frankly quite terrifying.

Agreed, it is a terrible thoughtless cliche. It purports to see into the mind and heart of the person doing it and smearing the act as disingenuous and therefore void of moral value. Obviously, we all KNOW deep down that they're doing it for bullshit reasons, it's obvious, we can all tell, can't we?

Made worse by the fact that some famous and powerful people are phonies who in fact do things for bullshit reasons, which you can be convinced of by their past behavior. On top of that, doing stuff on the internet for attention is pretty common. People then make the leap to "doing X thing I don't like is virtue signaling". It's not that I think it never happens, people aren't always sincere and I didn't just fall off the turnip truck, but the accusation itself is just a baseless smear if it's not accompanied by something corroborating.

We should be skeptical, not oafishly dismissive.

Except it's more like "vice signalling."