No, people do not "virtue signal" about things they care about. Perhaps they used to in the past, but language has moved on. The phrase is now understood to carry with it an accusation of insincerity. Therefore virtue signaling and actually caring are contradictory.
This is how language works. Usage is meaning. A change in usage is a change in meaning. Language doesn't care about your opinions on the matter, it simply is. The phrase "virtue signaling" now carries with it an accusation of insincerity. If you don't mean to level such an accusation, you're going to need to find a way to communicate what you do mean that isn't encumbered by connotations that have recently become standard.
Expressions of solidarity with the powerless can help them weather the storm: they buoy hope, they increase perceptions of connection and of agency. I have witnessed this repeatedly over decades, including at first hand in this very specific instance. If everyone kept quiet about everything they could not immediately, materially, "fix", the world would be a far more desolate place for many. I guess there's no particular obligation for you to care, but would it actually be such a privation for you to stoically weather your indignation about others doing so?
> Expressions of solidarity with the powerless can help them weather the storm: they buoy hope, they increase perceptions of connection and of agency
I agree that solidarity can help. But none of that's going on here... This pathetic attempt at shallow expression isn't going to reach the people who need it (or probably anyone in Iran for that matter, due to the Internet situation there).
> I guess there's no particular obligation for you to care, but would it actually be such a privation for you to stoically weather your indignation about others doing so?
This is degenerating into gaslighting and you trying to put words into my mouth, so I will let the thread rest. I guess I'm happy to agree to disagree on the effectiveness of online virtue signaling[1].
I'm not even judging these people that hard, I think. I'm just describing the response their shallow behaviour elicits in other people. I don't even get such a strong response myself, I just think it's worthless
[1] To avoid confusion I mean "pathetically shallow attempts at trying to make a difference to improve their colleagues perception of their (shallow) morals"; with malicious intent or without, the action is the same. But that concludes me playing online word/semantic lawyer
> This pathetic attempt at shallow expression isn't going to reach the people who need it
You have no idea. As I said, I have personal experience of this particular instance of what you stereotype, sans evidence, as 'virtual signalling', having a genuinely heartening effect on a friend whose nephew was killed recently in Iran. This is the trouble with you internet snarlers. You have so little knowledge of physical reality.
You call me an Internet snarler, but isn't what we're discussing Internet snarling? Anyway, I'm glad you have a friend who was touched by this and I'm sorry for your friend's loss.
This is how language works. Usage is meaning. A change in usage is a change in meaning. Language doesn't care about your opinions on the matter, it simply is. The phrase "virtue signaling" now carries with it an accusation of insincerity. If you don't mean to level such an accusation, you're going to need to find a way to communicate what you do mean that isn't encumbered by connotations that have recently become standard.