[woodruffw]

Please don't use "virtue-signaling" to mean "I don't agree with it." Virtue-signaling (as far as I can tell) refers to being all talk and no action, while public support in the form of advertisements and donations to non-profits is definitely a form of action.

Whether or not that action is good or not (I think it is, under the same qualifications that make philanthropy good) can be subject to rigorous debate, but slapping the "virtue-signaling" label on it without acknowledging the state of affairs is a form of virtue-signaling with respect to others who share your political proclivities.

Edit: I don't know anything about the Amadeu Antonio Foundation or a whole lot about German politics as a whole. I could be wrong here but I'd imagine that there are a lot of former StaSi in German politics, in the same way that there were a lot of ex-Nazi-party members in power in Western Germany. That's not to minimize either, but to observe a general flaw in Democratic transitions - you can only sample your leaders from a qualified subset of the population, and that subset was just as qualified under autocracy as it is under democracy.

[tnmrnis]

I would define virtue-signalling rather by the intention of what they do. They don't support those organizations out of an intrinsic motivation but to sell stuff to their followers. The intention is not to do good but to appear as an organization that does good. While I don't have any proof for this being their motivation, choosing the most visible instead of more effective organizations implies that they don't actually care about the effect or their support.

[woodruffw]

I respond to this partially in a reply to the commenter above.

> choosing the most visible instead of more effective organizations implies that they don't actually care about the effect or their support

Do we have any real evidence of this? The ACLU is a very effective organization with a long history of legal challenges across the political spectrum.

It's important to question the motives of businesses (in fact, it's necessary), but it's also myopic to assume that financial gain is the only motive involved.

[tnmrnis]

> Do we have any real evidence of this? The ACLU is a very effective organization with a long history of legal challenges across the political spectrum.

No, that's why I chose a different example.

[woodruffw]

Alright, let's take BLM then. There's no doubt in my mind that Ben & Jerry's factored visibility into their choice of organization - after all, visibility is the perpetuating force in activism.

The question is then whether that visibility was chosen over the organization's reputation for efficacy, which is very debatable. For example, BLM is in the forefront in the movement for law enforcement bodycams. It's once again up for debate whether that's a "good" thing, but it's undeniably a consequence of their activism.

This is more anecdotal, but I don't think about B&J's BLM support when I go to buy ice cream. I buy Cherry Garcia because I like Cherry Garcia, and knowing that some of my money goes to a cause that I like is just a cherry on the top. This, in my mind, is no substantially different from choosing McDonald's over Burger King* and subsequently recognizing that a small part of your purchase goes towards their children's charity.

* Sorry. I don't eat at either of these, but they came to mind as institutions that engage in (less partisan) activism on behalf of orphans and children.

[belorn]

Reading the definition on Wikipedia, "all talk and no action" isn't it. virtue-signaling means to platitudinous and superficial support a socially progressive view in order to enhance ones standing within that social group.

For example, a secret lobbyist could be doing virtue-signaling by advertisements and donations. Its common understanding that a lobbyist can and will change their views instantly when its profitable, and thus their actions aren't in honest support of the cause for which they are at some point supporting.

[woodruffw]

Which begs the question: What's so superficial about giving $1 million to the ACLU?

Lyft et al. have complex motives including financial gain, but that doesn't seem to detract from the fundamental good of their action. That's why I qualified it like philanthropy - we can immediately observe other motives for action (tax breaks, good standing among your wealthy peers), but these other motives don't negate any good done. The ACLU doesn't put their donations into red and green bank accounts based on who gives it.