4 ms·

This doesn't make any sense as one of these is logically less in volume than the other one, since it's just a reaction to the first virtue signaling. It's proba

• manholio 4y ago
  It makes sense because the latter is by definition a form of virtue signaling while the former is just presumed to be. Virtue signaling involves intent, so a person pointing out something is, say, misogynistic might do it because they are really concerned about the topic and it's the way they feel, even taking the risk of an unpopular opinion. Whereas someone denouncing them for virtue signaling is overtly engaging in virtue signaling, i.e. publicly proclaiming their distaste or disinterest to the topic. Unlike the first case, there is no larger public interest the denouncer claims to protect.
• astura 4y ago
  >It's probably more tiring to you because you post stuff like that a lot. Nope, I absolutely do not, nobody in my life has ever accused me of virtue signalling or even implied it. Try again. >one of these is logically less in volume than the other one You're absolutely right, accusing someone of "virtue signalling" is certainly more voluminous! The absolute only reason to accuse someone of virtue signalling is because the accuser themselves want to publicly signal their values to others and show their group affinity.