Looks like I blew virtue signalling out my arse. I though "virtue signalling" meant "virtue" = "signalling," as in "look at me I've done something virtuous." Totally explains why people are attaching the phrase to things that aren't really that virtuous.
Let's look at few words of import here dictionary.com definition followed by the Oxford/Google definition:
Virtue: noun:
moral EXCELLENCE; goodness; righteousness OR
behavior showing HIGH moral standards.
Moral(s): noun:
principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct OR
a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for THEM to do.
So in essence Virtue is Morals on steroids. For example, not cheating on my wife is moral behavior. Joining a Monestary would be virtuous.
To nail down Morals a bit, I think it's important to note the
THEM in the Oxford definition. So it would be immoral for me to get married to another woman while I'm married to my wife. OTOH, that would be perfectly moral behavior to a Mormon or a Muslim. Celebrating the Sabbath on Saturday might be considered immoral by some Christians, but would be considered good moral behavior among Jews. So my morals don't extend to you and your morals don't extend to me.
Here's the issue "Virtue Signaling" is a (usually) derogatory term and really has nothing to do with virtue (as it's commonly used).
Virtue Signaling: nonu:
the sharing of one's point of view on a social or political issue, often on social media, in order to garner praise or acknowledgment of one’s righteousness from others who share that point of view, or to passively rebuke those who do not: OR
the public expression of opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one's good character or social conscience or the moral correctness of one's position on a particular issue.
Personally, I find the Dictionary.com definition problematic, because of the passive aggressive behavior (passively rebuke). The passive aggressive behavior part would rule out just anything about posted in Thunderdome, because we're openly aggressive in here. Furthermore, I'd suggest the first part about seeking praise or acknowledgment doesn't apply in here because I seriously doubt that is anybody's motive when they are posting in here. Another problem have with both definitions is that we have to know the signaler's intent.
I don't care for the way the phrase is used because (generally) people are just assuming intent and because of the word "Virtue." For example, I would never say "I got the jab, therefore I'm virtuous person." If somebody tells me they were motivated to get the jab for the greater good, I wouldn't call that virtuous behavior. It's somebody doing the bare minimum and risking nothing (assuming they don't view the vax as risky). Basically it's barely even moral behavior and as I discussed earlier morality is subjective. Getting the jab is doing next to nothing and hardly virtuous. Healthcare workers who endured long hours with no vaccine protection and PPE shortages working in Covid wards and watching people slowly die from a disease that they were willingly exposing themselves to, now that's virtue. So it seems to me "virtue signaling" isn't used in a way that is consistent with the definition because the users are 1) assuming the signaler's intent. 2) They're assuming the signaler (who has usually done some bare minimum act, like posting their political beliefs or putting a rainbow sticker on their car) thinks their behavior is virtuous (aka SUPER moral). Since that's two assumptions, a little matrix math tells they're down to 25% probability of being correct. So it seems the only thing consistent with how the phrase is currently being used is that it's used as a derogatory. Maybe if users of "virtue signaling" stuck to just things that the majority would actually consider virtuous then they could get to 50/50 on whether they have an actual case of virtue signaling on their hands.