When you express a view that you don't hold in order to receive social approval, or when you express a view that you hold lightly with more intensity and freque

When you express a view that you don't hold in order to receive social approval, or when you express a view that you hold lightly with more intensity and frequency than you would except for your desire to receive social approval you are being inauthentic. The whole value of the phrase 'virtue signalling' is that it accuses those you disagree with of inauthenticity. If I'm saying a thing I genuinely believe because I genuinely believe it, I'm not virtue signalling. It's only if the reason for saying the thing is to gain social approval that it's 'virtue signalling'. Any assumption that your opponent is doing something for this reason is uncharitable, and kills rational debate. It's essentially an ad hominem attack. It's also ignoring the fairly detailed entry that Scott posted explaining in his own words why he started talking about Trump in his blog: http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2777 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2777 when previously he'd avoided the subject. Maybe it is virtue signalling, or maybe he really did feel as he claimed, that he had a moral responsibility to speak out against Trump. If you assume that it is only 'virtue signalling', you are cutting yourself off from engaging with his points.