Let's talk about virtue signalling.

The phrases's full meaning highlights a serious issue: the performative allegiance with an important cause, done solely with the motive to improve one's own image (or satisfy conscience), rather than to take action/change things.

But over the last few weeks, an awful lots of campaigns and public figures have been dismissed as 'virtue signalling' - most notably, Marcus Rashford.

Many left-oriented campaigns are aimed at large-scale things that are difficult to change (not impossible, just difficult). Individual direct action can be difficult to measure.

It's here that the insidious label of 'virtue signalling' benefits right-wing politics. It brings a false binary and straw man argument: if you can't personally bring about change on an issue, discussion of it can be written off as mere signalling to make yourself look better.

It silences debate. A similar thing was said around the 2011 Occupy protests (where protestors still drank coffee from Starbucks): i.e. 'you can't criticise a system if you're still within it', despite that the fact that we live in a society and economy.

It also betrays callousness on the person using the term dismissively: 'I dismiss your good will as mere selfishness'. It shows that the 'virtuous' character trait (i.e. high moral standards) is something that they do not value.

To be clear: everyone who praises a cause should be taking some action to support it (just sharing on social media isn't enough). But that can be easily (and privately done): donating to legal funds/charities, pressure on MPs and councillors, and street protest.

But also to be clear: 'virtue signalling' is fast becoming a right-wing tool to shut down debate. Challenge it and question it every time you see/hear it being used. (Thread end).