[shermantanktop]

“Virtue signaling” has become a thought-terminating cliche.

All it really amounts to is an accusation of insincerity motivated by vanity, which is a two-for-one ad hominem attack that allows the accuser to avoid responding to the actual point.

[burritoAlPast0r]

It is a statement on a culture that values insincere "feelgoodery" over truth. We can decry the downfall of common sense even if it comes at the expense of pointing out the obvious. Imo this is a good trend.

[applfanboysbgon]

> insincere "feelgoodery" over truth

This has literally nothing to do with the article, and really nothing to do with almost any usage of the term I've seen. I pretty much always see it as a kind of incoherent insult that, like this usage here, isn't based in any kind of reality but instead just makes the person writing it feel good about themselves for some reason.

[Barbing]

Easy phrase for rude folks to trot out when someone raises ethical/moral/legal concerns. Quick little rationalization:

_other person says they care about thing I don't that admittedly does sound good, so it has to be wrong to have mentioned it - I can't just say I don't care about the good-sounding thing_

(Of course, on the internet, people will end up playing make believe with their values, but it shouldn't be the first assumption. Or maybe it should, but with a hard second look.)

[shermantanktop]

But I could accuse you (to be clear, I'm not) of making that statement out of a desire to "virtue signal."

You are stating your opposition to feelgoodery, thereby currying favor with those in your anti-feelgoodery camp by showing how anti-feelgoodery you are. But secretly of course I'm saying you don't really believe that. You are not that opposed to feelgoodery, you're just trying to get brownie points and make yourself feel good (ironically).

Again, that's not what I think, but IMO that's what the use of the phrase has mostly become.