"Virtue-signalling" is one of those terms we might struggle to define precisely, but we nonetheless know what it means, and we know it when we see it.
That includes those of us who intentionally misunderstand it, for performative reasons.
Put it that way: If somebody brags about how much money they give to charity, is that "virtue-signalling"?
No. Absolutely not. Because that would be disingenuous literalism. In practice, it never just meant the signalling of ANY virtuous activity. It has a more specific meaning.
Virtue-signalling really means signalling that you hold political opinions which guarantee easy applause, because they are in line with what the cultural establishment considers virtuous.
And since the cultural establishment = the woke Left, only the woke Left can virtue-signal.
That doesn't mean that right-wingers can't hold silly signalling opinions. They can, and they often do.
But it's not virtue-signalling. It's something else. Right-wingers can't virtue-signal, because right-wing views are not considered virtuous.
This is virtue-signalling, for example.
Whether or not we can provide a definition that could be printed in the Oxford English Dictionary - we know it when we see it. It's a meaningful term, which describes a real phenomenon.
Sweden has been doing relatively OK during Covid, and they've certainly outperformed expectations.
But it's also very far from a brilliant success story.
Their excess mortality rate has been a good deal higher than in the neighbour countries, and the economy is doing no better.
"Ah", say the Swedenistas, "but back in spring, they didn't just say it would be somewhat worse than in the neighbour countries! They said there would be a bloodbath! Mayhem!"
Well, so what? I don't care what "they" predicted. *I* did not predict that, did I?
I've just bought Squealer's book, and I already regret it.
It starts with an Ash Sarkar quote...
Doesn't get any better. The first few pages already contain a full set of leftie bingo. He also demonstrates that he still hasn't learned how to pass an Ideological Turing Test.
He doesn't get the Culture War at all. He thinks right-wingers are just people who suffer from neoliberalism, and who mistakenly blame their problems on Muslims.
Hard to believe now, but there really was a time when most right-wingers sort of liked Owen Jones.
Until 2015/16, I often heard people say "Sure, he's wrong about everything - but I can't help liking him! He seems like an honest, well-meaning bloke."
NOBODY says that today.
The reason they liked him was that he didn't have this typical leftie tendency to hyper-moralise everything, and assume that everyone outside of their tribe was literally Hitler.
That's very, very unusual for a leftie. And conservatives and liberals appreciated that.
The Corbo years then ruined him. He effectively became Corbo's propaganda minister, and in that role, he became incredibly dishonest, and hyper-tribal. He would say absolutely anything to defend Corbo, including for things he'd never ever let a political opponent get away with.
I mean, it's not a crime not to know how much we spend on healthcare, or how that compares to 10 years ago, or to other countries. I wouldn't know that either, if it weren't part of my job.
But if you don't know those things, then don't be so super-confident about your opinions.
Everyone complains about Twitter being aggressive, rude and hostile. I don't mind that at all. But what I truly hate about this platform is that the average Twitter user is so unbelievably self-confident, when they really, really, really should not be.