Regardless of whether or not either interlocutor understands the term, using the term virtue signaling itself is self-defeating for both parties for different reasons.
For the one hearing it, it’s a red herring, and for the one saying it, it’s a dog whistle. For the third party person reading the interaction without or with lesser context, it’s a thought-terminating cliche.
> For the third party person reading the interaction without or with lesser context, it’s a thought-terminating cliche.
if one's thought is so easily terminated, maybe there wasn't as much thought as one might think to begin with.
If good faith weren't a prerequisite for reasoned debate, perhaps.
remember, we're talking about somebody getting triggered by the words "virtue-signalling", so I think good faith left the conversation a few stops back.