So that is interesting. What is wrong with signalling virtue? In your previous comment, you said that volume =/= value. To me it seems you don't like when people try to be social and expressive, at least around certain topics.

You haven't elaborated on what racial injustice looks like to you, you're just gate keeping other people's definitions. Those other definitions of racial injustice are vapid, but your own secret measure is beyond reproach. You ensure it is beyond reproach by never describing it or allowing it to be challenged. This implies a fear that you might be criticized.

Skepticism isn't analysis. To me, it seems like you're all too willing to diminish real examples of systematic racism. Again, by going after "virtue signallers" you imply that your own position is the real virtuous one. And since you won't elaborate anything about it, then it is vapid, at least to me. As you can see I have no problem explaining my reasoning, and you won't even really challenge it. So what's the point?

You can't or won't prove your own ideas so they don't exist outside your idealistic little thought cave. The most generous interpretation I can make based on our conversation is that you just dont really care about other people. That's sort of normal, unfortunately, but it doesnt make you correct or even relevant.

I was playing games online a while back and a group of young people were in chat, and called one of the kids a "try hard". The kid's response: "I've never tried hard at anything in my life." That is how your virtue signalling comment appears to me. I want people to signal virtue, and you clearly believe in virtue/value. Signalling it helps virtuous people to find one another, and together we might accomplish something. For some reason, youve internalized it as a bad thing and I really don't understand why.

Please elaborate on who the victims are of that comment you originally responded to. Or is that another idealistic little hypothetical covering for your own lack of critical thought, as it appears?