Using "virtue signaling" is in vogue, and I don't like it. Yes, the idea is real, but it has become an easy way of dismissing the legitimacy of the person it is invoked against, without doing any work to actually support the accusation.
It is also telling that it is used exclusively to undercut progressive stances -- things like feminism, liberal immigration policies, fair pay, etc. It is never used to undermine the position of someone who who has made a typically conservative stance. Let me demonstrate.
Statement 1: "I wouldn't want to work there because they have a reputation as having a sexist work environment."
Rejoinder 1: "Your obvious virtue signaling is a joke. I don't care what you think."
Statement 2: "I believe in the constitution and believe guns are a significant foundation to the freedoms we enjoy."
Rejoinder 2: "You are just virtue signaling. Ooh, look at me, I'm such a patriot. Ha ha."
Why is it we only see type 1 rejoinders and not type 2?
It is also telling that it is used exclusively to undercut progressive stances -- things like feminism, liberal immigration policies, fair pay, etc. It is never used to undermine the position of someone who who has made a typically conservative stance. Let me demonstrate.
Statement 1: "I wouldn't want to work there because they have a reputation as having a sexist work environment."
Rejoinder 1: "Your obvious virtue signaling is a joke. I don't care what you think."
Statement 2: "I believe in the constitution and believe guns are a significant foundation to the freedoms we enjoy."
Rejoinder 2: "You are just virtue signaling. Ooh, look at me, I'm such a patriot. Ha ha."
Why is it we only see type 1 rejoinders and not type 2?