[SilasX]

I use "virtue signaling" for something like:

3. Advocacy that mainly serves to make the advocate sound virtuous rather than substantively address the difficult aspects of a difficult tradeoff or help to wisely deploy resources in a way that will make progress on a problem.

It's distinct from your 1 in that it accepts that people can exist who legitimately care about improving the world.

It's distinct from your 2 in that it doesn't assert the person's advocacy is dishonest (or otherwise not heartfelt), only that their specific contributions are unhelpful or present a bad framing.

Example of a useful difference that 3 highlights:

Virtue signaling: "I just think we should help everyone wherever we can." -> suggests that the speaker is particularly noble while also setting a herculean standard for how to live one's life. (Really? Every single moment?)

Not virtue signaling: "As a rule of thumb, you should give about 10% of your net income to charitable causes, since this is historically feasible, and mainly would force you to cut back in ways that have disproportionately high utility for others. Any more than that is nice, but is more than I can legitimately ask." -> recognizes upper bounds in what they expect out of others, and what might be feasible or excessive.

Naturally, most advocacy lasts more than two sentences, but that gives the general idea.

[bawolff]

I feel like the term virtue signaling is used in a way that almost always implies some implication of insinceerity, i.e. they are doing it for popularity/upvotes/etc and not out of moral concern. As such i agree with the other poster that it is in essence an ad hominem, although usually its not solely an ad hominem but combined with some argument that the advocacy is superficial or ineffective. (Although typically on the internet its a pretty weak argument most of the time)

[scarmig]

To me, writing off a stance as "virtue signaling" is the same kind of laziness as writing off a stance as coming from a "position of privilege": it may well be true, but rational debate requires assuming your debate partners came to their position through reasoned thought and honestly hold it.

[rumanator]

> it may well be true, but rational debate

Rational debate is not the virtue signaler's goal or means. They just want to flaunt a "holier than thou" attitude while actually caring zero about the topic. Demanding that those targeted by virtual signaler's passive-agressive's attacks must not point out the virtue signaler's inherent dishonesty is like complaining that the targets must passively serve the the virtue signaler's desires without a hint of rational or objective thought, as if the only acceptable outcome of a virtue signaler's attack is getting the target to publicly recognize how the virtue signaler is so virtuous and that the world should follow his teachings, no matter how empty and inconsequent and self-aggrandizing they might be.