On the other side, being told what is "bad", what is "good", "right" and wrong", what is "dark" and what is "bright", what I should do and think and why I don't have such good morals, in the past 15 years, was so exhausting...
I read the post as the author decribing facts and imparting instructions of what we should do ("It's time to do X", "The cargo cult metaphor should be avoided") because they believe their knowledge/opinions/morals/beliefs are better than mine, and somehow they can dictate what to do; how should I feel, what should I think.
Otherwise I am oppressing, contributing to oppress, perpetuating something, [insert other accusations].
As in the past 15 years. It's enough already.
The real question is why the author is doing this? Is it ego? Money? Clicks? Pure and true altruism?
And here "virtue signalling" comes as a possible valid answer too.
The problem with saying it's virtue signaling is that when you resort to ad hominem attacks, you're conceding the argument. Attacking character concedes the argument being made. Well I don't concede. I have a good argument against it. My argument is that nobody cares about the etymology or morality of a word. They care about its meaning and context. People don't learn language by reading etymologies. Nobody cares one way or the other about the morality of the first person who said it or popularized it especially if it happened a hundred years ago. We don't need to look up the etymology of every word or phrase before using it, and asking people to do that is unrealistic and unreasonable.
Is it virtue signaling? I don't know, and I don't care. His character doesn't matter to me. It doesn't affect whether or not his idea is a good one. It's a bad idea, and leave it there.
And doesn't matter if it was written in a blog.
Pablo Escobar could say that he understand his values (whatever they were; maybe money and power over all other values?) and that he works to apply them every day. He advocated for his own values and morals (ruthlessly). This doesn't make him an Ethical person.
And more to the point, you're not believable. Are you really going to say that because Pablo Escobar may have had a set of values and acted on those values, we have to throw away that whole idea?
Hitler was really fond of his pet dog, does having a pet dog make someone evil?
In any case, here's what I dislike about your original comment, and what it seems to express.
Instead of engaging with the ideas and values presented in the article, you feel back on attacking the very idea of expressing ideas and values. You know that's a ridiculous position, I know you do, but it's easier to do that than it is to actually engage.