I'm not quite connecting the dots. If it's not a virtue then I'm not sure how it would qualify as virtue signaling. What am I missing?

Virtue signaling doesn’t have to be done with something that’s actually a virtue, you just have to think that what you’re signaling is perceived as a virtue by your target demographic.

What perceived virtue do you think the author is trying to signal? How do you separate it from a true belief? It seems like you'ld have to have access to their mental state, no?

Virtue signaling isn’t necessarily lying about your belief, it’s overtly making everyone aware of how virtuous you think you are, and that you’re morally superior.

The signaling is just pointing it out to make yourself look better, it doesn’t mean you’re lying.

It sounds really weird that critics cannot place themselves in the shoes of the virtue signaler and describe where the virtues or morals are being communicated. I'm repeatedly trying to abide by the site guidelines by getting curious rather than disagreeing. It's like some sort of ideological opposition is causing a mental barrier to empathy. I still don't understand it, but some day I hope to. Thank you.

You're beginning to look very, very, wilfully obtuse.

Yes, I think we’re in Sealioning territory now. Most of these questions would have been answered with a quick skim of the Wikipedia article on virtue signaling.

Policing the language to avoid harming oppressed people. This is not a real virtue though as there's no actual harming and the only thing it does is creating animosity, annoyance and pointless arguments and causing people to hate each other needlessly, without helping any oppressed people in any way.

> It seems like you'ld have to have access to their mental state, no

Of course, absent communication, that would be the only way. Fortunately, communication - such as written text - allows us to let others to witness certain aspects of our mental state, this is one of the points of communication. So, present the communication, we can make certain conclusions about the mental state of the communicator.

Moreover an article isn't neccesarily virtue signalling merely because an internet forum user stridently declares it to be.

Also true. But just saying „but what he’s signaling isn’t actually a virtue, how can it be virtue signaling?“ isn’t a very good argument.

Sounds like “virtue signalling” has the same definition as “hipster” did in the early 00s - a proxy for “something or someone I don’t like”

It’s certainly sometimes used that way. But the real meaning is something like „making sure everyone knows how moral you are without making a lot of effort to actually be moral, just by telling everyone“.

By that definition the linked article doesn't fit, then. The author has put a lot of effort into research and writing about this subject. The "morality" part is a relatively small part of it, just a single paragraph in the conclusion.

I’m not saying that it’s virtue signaling, I was just criticizing the bad arguments against the claim that it was.

These days the word is "woke" or any of its variants.

I struggle to differentiate commenters muttering "radical wokeism", "virtue signalling", etc from dogs barking at cars.

Non constructive noise from creatures with desire only to chase something.

It's politics. It doesn't have to make any sense. These people have grievances and they want everyone else to hear them. They're pissed off they're being asked to have empathy for others, and much like children they're incapable of it.