Just to give my 2 cents. The motivations for any human activity are varied and complicated, but I think virtue-signaling should probably be looked at through t

Just to give my 2 cents. The motivations for any human activity are varied and complicated, but I think virtue-signaling should probably be looked at through the lens of a preemptive defense mechanism. One of the biggest threats to individuals throughout history has been being cast out of the tribe. The modern equivalent to that is being cancelled, socially rejected and ignored, de-platformed, etc. My theory is that people who feel weak start don't feel safe in asking "Is this opinion actually morally right?" but by asking "Will this opinion put me at risk or not?". This is why virtue-signalers espouse the opinions they do: basically amplified versions of whatever they see it's ok to express on popular media. This is partly why many Twitter profiles went an identity promoting masks/vaccines/omicron to organizing their lives around caring about Ukraine/Russia/Putin in the blink of an eye. Remember I mentioned feeling weakness? I'm not trying to be unkind, but this might explain why the people who espouse the most extreme Tumbler-esque opinions often physically look the way they do. And this is why every single discussion on social issues on any non-anonymous platform is total bullshit: only people with true fuck-you money and who don't give a shit about their social standing can have an honest discussion in public on anything really controversial.