So either virtue signaling applies anytime someone expresses an opinion about something moral, in which case it’s a useless truism. Or it’s meant to express doubt or challenge someone to prove that they take action, in which case who owes you proof?

Putting a statement of support for a cause in your open source repo may or may not have any direct impact, but it is personal expression - and in general I am for personal expression.

I’m for signal, not noise. I don’t want stupid personal expressions, I want meaningful or beautiful or somehow useful.

I used to work with a person who would raise their hand in every presentation and say “security is important how is this software secure” even when it wasn’t anywhere remotely relevant. It was counterproductive and distracting and wasted valuable time that we could use to do something better.

I guess I feel that improving our world, ending war, making our society more just and fair, these are meaningful, useful, and beautiful things to do. They might be some of the most meaningful things actually.

> It was counterproductive and distracting and wasted valuable time that we could use to do something better.

This is an argument about context. Security IS important, I imagine we'd both agree, but maybe not in that specific situation. Like if I bring up climate change while we're rushing to the hospital after a car accident. Climate change is a real and important issue, but right now it's a distraction. So is an open source website an inappropriate context to indicate support for movements or disapproval of others? I don't think so, but if you do calling it "virtue signaling" isn't what you mean, and is actually a counterproductive distraction.

This is just false. Some signaling achieves nothing, but there's plenty of signaling that has caused individuals to change their behavior, politicians to pass laws, and corporations to change their products. The thing is it's basically impossible to tell which is the useful signaling and which is shouting into the void, even as the person signaling the signals. Which drop filled the bucket?

You seem to find it annoying because you think it's being done just to SEEM good, rather than to BE good... but when it comes to issues we don't have direct control of, there's not much difference. I can ACT on my belief that texting and driving is a terrible thing to do all I want, but it doesn't stop anyone else from doing it. The only small piece of influence I have over others is to signal that I believe it's wrong whenever it's appropriate. That and lobby for tougher fines (by signaling to politicians) and technological solutions (again, by signaling to corporations).

None of this is to say you can't criticize specific gestures as being empty - but to say signaling is always empty is just false.

I feel that way too. I want all those things. Adding “FreeUkraine” or “BLM” doesn’t do that. I don’t think virtue signaling is that big of a problem, but adding these phrases does nothing more than signal.

I don’t think it’s productive to call out virtual signaling in that I would never submit a PR to complain or remove. But I definitely notice it and it seems stupid. I don’t spend a lot of time thinking about it but a second or two while reading docs doesn’t make me think more highly of someone.

I think cynically it just seems like people say this instead of doing meaningful things.

They would be, if they actually made meaningful strides to accomplish those objectives beyond stroking the dev's ego.

However, I've gotten a lot of feedback from friends of mine that signalling my support for their cause or identity has made them feel more comfortable in the world.

That's both useful and beautiful.

I’m not saying that security reviews shouldn’t be performed. They should. Security should be part of design and code review. But it’s not a relevant question in every single situation.

That's the implication. But I'm pretty sure the critics would be even angrier if the open source project had taken action.

The virtue in this case being an implied rejection of groupthink.

You can always dismiss what they say by saying they don’t actually care, it’s just to look good.

It tells more about _your_ beliefs and what _you_ stand for than anything.

It seems a lot of HNers don’t stand for freedom too much. They stand for not being annoyed by the fallouts of this war.

"This is virtue signaling" is more of a dog whistle ingratiating yourself with a certain crowd instead of an argument. Don't know what youre trying to achieve besides that.

Genius move. Any concept that can be used to criticize you is implicitly outing me as part of your out-group. Now you can judge me not on my own merits, but on the merits of people you associate me with. And my posts can well-formulated and thought-out, you disregard them for factors i cannot possibly control.

This is the partisan thinking that i don't want to have business with. This is what i ghost people for. Call it cancelling if you want to, fact is, if you are walking through the world looking for friends, my place is the wrong address.

Judge me by my own merits, not by some other random people you picked.

Edit: After showing this to her, my wife straight out told me that you are psychotic ("einen an der Dattel haben") and that I should not argue with random internet people. Thinking about it, she is right.

I don't think recognizing that is conflicting at all with a positive outlook, or the choice to be optimistic, or a humanist, etc. You can choose to believe it or choose not to believe it, and still value human life and try to progress humanity forward.

Also don't underestimate the value/incentive of following your conscience, acting out your beliefs etc. Cognitive dissonance (which results from not doing so) is deeply uncomfortable and a good motivator for being "altruistic."