The problem is that the action condemned by the "virtue signaling" label is real, widespread, and destrucive. Always someone obnoxiously coming out of nowhere with some usually inconsequential moral high ground. I think where we will disagree is how destructive and common it is, and how much it needs to be called out. I personally think it's one of the worst traits of modern social media discourse.

Maybe some people are too quick with the term, there always will be people like that for any label. But just consider all the people just as tired of real conversation being shackled by "virtue signaling" as you are of being called a virtue signaler.

Also, you could write your disgruntled comments about any label. We are certainly way too quick to find racism where there isn't any. Yet there are also real racists out there complaining that the charge of racism is really getting on their nerves. Does that mean we stop charging people with racism when we see it? No, we're trying to call out unacceptable behavior.

If we're getting into pet peeves, mine is "gaslighting". Everything is "gaslighting" now. Accidentally spread a small inaccuracy? Gaslighting. Tell a public lie? You're now "gaslighting the world". Sharing my disagreement with you, like this comment? I'm gaslighting you.

I guess my point is that the term "virtue signalling" is used to undermine someone's belief that something is an actual virtue.

If I say "don't be racist" and you call me a virtue signaller, you are implying that I don't actually care if you're racist, I just want social points for being "good". The problem is you don't know if I care or not. I might care deeply. I might dedicate my life to being anti-racist, but you can just label it virtue signalling and move on? that's an intellectually dishonest maneuver.

Virtue signalling to me is to do something over the top with little practical utility, or which is even counter-productive, to show off one's apparent virtues.

It can be incomparably frustrating as it focuses on non-issues or minor issues and misses the bigger picture. I personally don't see it used outside of those contexts but it shouldn't be used to dismiss actual action like doing your part against climate change.

In what way is there a difference between virtue signaling and performative?

The difference I'm hoping to draw out is that virtue signalling implies the person doesn't actually care, just wants to be seen as virtuous.

Buying CFL lightbulbs is performative climate action.

Buying CFL lightbulbs is virtue signalling climate action.

One of them is about the action - buying bulbs isn't effective, the other is about the person - if you buy bulbs you are fake. Perhaps "performative" fails at making this distinction clear enough, but I'd like a way to imply that someone is all-talk-no-action, without undermining their actual belief in something.

The idea that you can't attack someone's behavior is ridiculous. If you want to consider what i'm doing virtue signaling then go right ahead I guess.

Yes. You calling other people for virtue signalling is a form of virtue signalling in itself.

Don’t you realize how ridiculous and useless this argument is?

Don't you understand that I am arguing that virtue signaling is real. You saying I am virtue signaling is only agreeing with my point.