I tend to agree with how you've reframed my points, in fact all of them, though I could have been a little more careful with my words. Regarding the last point

I tend to agree with how you've reframed my points, in fact all of them, though I could have been a little more careful with my words. Regarding the last point, I'd say that cost wouldn't designate a belief genuine or not, and now that I think of it, narcissistic intention doesn't negate that either. Rather, it's an assessment of how bold a statement is, or the degree to which it's likely to be shallow or indicative of attention grabbing for personal gain. More concisely, putting your money where your mouth is. After 911, if you were afraid of terrorism, it might come up in conversation and you'd talk about it, but going to random places on the internet and discussing it unprompted—especially if you used it as a vehicle for middle eastern bigotry, which was also common—would signal something else, especially if you have a figurative grand stand available. Those that have a minority opinion would be less likely to be doing it for claps—although they might get them—because their audience is more ambiguous. More about the degree being the measure. I'm concerned about climate change, but have only personally given up a bit in the name of it. If I were to be extremely vocal on reddit about that, it would be for imaginary personal gain. That said, a third case of both being true definitely exists. Having high cost and an opinion doesn't negate the possibility that you're moral grandstanding. I suppose what I was thinking about was more to do with how much you'd need to have considered a given stance, based on potential conflict with your personal beliefs or those of most people around you.