[sillysaurus3]

It didn't lead to a flamewar.

The issue is that expressing your own moral opinion is fashionable. It's considered acceptable to hold someone else's head under water just to raise your own. And that's toxic.

Note that anyone who calls out virtue signaling soon ends up in the crosshairs. I don't mind though.

Also, they were quite serious. And that's the problem. The fact that they're serious in calling out someone as a "terrible person" (when they're not) is what makes it dangerous.

[rhcom2]

It's an internet forum. We're all expressing our own moral and general opinions. It's toxic to assume these opinions are not honestly held and write them off simply with another buzz word. The other poster didn't hold Shkreli's head under the water, his comments will not affect Martin at all. Plenty of people in this thread think he is a terrible person, you don't - that's fine, but it is still just an opinion. I don't see how that (or almost any) opinion is "dangerous" just because you disagree.

I don't know why you feel you're "in the crosshairs". You had no problem criticising the other poster, you should be able to take some criticism of your own.

[sillysaurus3]

It's toxic to assume these opinions are not honestly held and write them off simply with another buzz word.

You keep saying this, but nobody did that. Maybe that's where your anger is coming from. I clarified in my last comment that their opinions are honestly held, so at this point it seems like you're trying to misunderstand me.

I think you really dislike the term "virtue signaling." That's fine, but it doesn't change that that's what is happening here.

The fact that all of this stemmed from the idea that he is a terrible person for threatening to destroy an album as a joke is what makes this situation ludicrous. When the witch hunting mindset is so engrained in our culture, it becomes dangerous to those it targets.

[rhcom2]

I'm not angry at all, I'm just trying to tell you that if you're going to comment on what makes this community worse you need to consider your own behaviour.

> Since 2015, the term has become more commonly used as a pejorative characterization by commentators to criticize what they regard as the platitudinous, empty, or superficial support of certain political views" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling

You can see why I would misunderstand you because this is the definition of the word as I (and obviously others) understand it. So basically saying someone's opinions are "platitudinous, empty, or superficial" is both shitty way to try to have a conversation and a way to write people's opinions off. The wikipedia also pretty nicely sums up how it has become a misused buzzword without any actual meaning, unless you're a signalling theorist.