The terraform changes just seem so unprofessional and a prime example of virtue-signaling.
Were the Canadian truckers protesting in Ottawa virtue signalling? Are people posting "Let's Go Brandon" online also virtue signalling? If not, what's the difference between their form of protest and this Terraform stunt?
Political valence. It is a term a certain flavor of culture warrior likes to employ in attempts to devalue public statements by their opponents.
I think the term ‘virtue signalling’ was originally intended to point out a perceived hypocrisy - that it’s much easier to gain public support for an idea/cause/campaign if that campaign is perceived to be helping some disenfranchised group - even if the campaign also benefits the organizer, and even if the campaign is not necessarily wanted by some or even all of the allegedly-aggrieved group.
So an in-person march, trucker protest, sit-ins, having a private conversation, calling your representative, making personal sacrifices, attempting to bring attention to lesser-known issues, donating money, engaging in dialog to convince someone of your position, etc would not be virtue signaling.
But things like posting "Let's Go Brandon" online, or changing your profile picture with no further action, or unironically using terms like "virtue signaling" for internet points might qualify as virtue signaling.
If if they are wearing it primarily as a method of socially fitting in and signaling to those around them then it might be "virtue signaling".
If they would continue to wear a poppy on remembrance day in contexts where the people around them did not know what it meant then there's clearly something more than signaling going on. Perhaps it is their tradition, or it helps them remember.
(I should caveat that I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with social signaling so I don't use the term "virtue signaling" as it seems to have a pejorative or sarcastic connotation.)
To paraphrase the bible "Jesus said The pious pray in their closet. Those who make big shows of praying in public are nothing but douchebags."
To me, it's the element of risk that differentiates virtue signaling from meaningful action. Posting "Let's go Brandon" on parlour or "Black Lives Matter" or Tumblr aren't risky actions. Saying "I think gay marriage is ok" in a conservative church is. Just because you can imagine a situation where the context lessens the impact of the action, doesn't mean the example is weak or wrong.
And it's based on the flawed assumption that stating public support for something without doing anything else is useless.
But people moderate their behaviour based on perceived social norms.
When people publicly state their support for a given issue, they are communicating what they understand social norms to be.
When a lot of people do that, that becomes the norm.
So "virtue signalling" could just as easily be labelled "showing support", which is the way that we share and align on those norms.
But, of course, folks who don't like people voicing their support for those values, for fear that they will become normalized, needed to find a label to apply to insult those people and, hopefully, stop people from voicing their support for these social movements.
And thus the term "virtue signalling" was born. Suddenly saying out loud what you believe becomes itself a social moray.
Now flying a pride flag, or calling for increased diversity in the workplace, has become "virtue signalling" and something to be embarrassed about.
It's quite clever as a means of controlling the narrative. And it appears a shocking number of people have bought into the BS.
1) Does "showing support," actually do anything? Are we really aligning on norms or just scoring points with people who already agree the same position? I suspect the detail matter and that there is continuum, where for uncommon positions maybe it does something, but for widely held views, it really is just "virtue signalling."
2) When does "showing support," become a substitute for more substantive action. Maybe I post a pride flag on my social media avatar, but don't bother to vote in a local election with discriminatory ballot initiative. Or consider any number of incidents of corporate "greenwashing."
But sure, plenty of virtue signalling, isn't _just_ signalling. And we shouldn't dismiss it on those terms, but rather ask about impact.
It's certainly less impactful than doing something substantive but it also costs nothing to signal boost. Same like boycotts, it only works en masse.
It'd be like flying a great big flag that says "I support the government and corporations." Whenever I see a pride flag, that is essentially what I see. It's like, (and it's useful to read the people who are against you as a mirror), when Patriarch Kirill of Russia says: ". Today there is such a test for the loyalty of this government, a kind of pass to that “happy” world, the world of excess consumption, the world of visible “freedom”. Do you know what this test is? The test is very simple and at the same time terrible - this is a gay parade. The demands on many to hold a gay parade are a test of loyalty to that very powerful world; and we know that if people or countries reject these demands, then they do not enter into that world, they become strangers to it."[1]
That's not far off from the truth. Virtue signalling, as opposed to protest, is oriented towards moving closer to power, rather than further away from it. In Foucauldian terms, protest would be a transgression, a breaking of the taboo, and virtue signalling would be the opposite of that, an adherence to and reinforcement of the taboo, in which one mimetically serves the strengthening of the taboo, until the mimetic crisis breaks into blodshed.
Virtue signalling is wearing the swastika in 1938, and bears no relation to wearing one in 1929, except to say that those who wore it in 1929 won.
[1]: https://www-patriarchia-ru.translate.goog/db/text/5906442.ht...
There is also a sense that whatever thing someone is “virtue signaling” about is acceptable enough that there is no real downside for taking the stance.
It would be like an American proudly declaring how much he loves the United States on Independence Day. He would go out of his way to emphasize just how much of a patriot he is, hoping to be rewarded for doing so.
If you oppose a cause, "virtue signal" is a term of denigration for any public action on behalf of the cause to discourage people showing support for it.
When you protest for gay rights in 2020 it is a virtue signal. When you protest for gay rights in 1987, it is because you believe in it and are willing to take the cost of it.
Since public trade companies only care about money, when those companies support some course it has become safe enough that it is now virtue signalling.
I don’t think this is the case; it’s still legal to discriminate on the basis of sexuality in many states and contexts such as housing in the United States. You may not be able to fire someone for being gay but in many places you can evict them for it.
Additionally I don’t think it’s virtue signaling to protest for gay rights beyond the small number of countries that recognize marriage. There are still countries where gay behavior is illegal, marriage isn’t recognized, and gay panic is a legal defense.
The impact of virtue signalling is pretty evident. Ever seen how in order to make a statement on something you have to first identify yourself as part of that something that you're criticising? That's a direct byproduct of virtue signaling.
More or less, it's a form of manipulation.
But really I don't know your motivations and you don't know the motivations of the Terraform folks. Let's be a bit more humble please. But yes, I also find it unprofessional.