The use of the phrase "virtue signaling" has to have reached a point by now where its use is itself a kind of signal. Because more often than not, it seems to be deployed by people who, like the poster above, not only fail to make a case as to what sort of test they've devised which would distinguish between someone who is acting primarily out of internally negotiated moral belief vs someone who is primarily performing socially negotiated moral belief, but give no indication that they're even aware that this might be important in asserting the "virtue signaling" judgment.

Or, in other words, one of the signals that's being sent is that the speaker is not actually making any sort of point, they're merely performing something that they don't understand using a linguistic package that they haven't unpacked but are pretty sure they can use to erode the status of another party they see as a status threat.

> I personally find the Communists far more dangerous than the NAZI's/Fascists ever were. They are responsible for the greatest human suffering the World has ever seen. A monumental evil based on murder, poverty and destruction.

Well, faced with a rather concrete version of that question in form of actually conforming nation-states, the allies seem to have made a different call than you did about the greater / lesser evils.

There's a lot of competition on the field of ideologically-driven suffering and atrocities, including several major world religions along with communism, fascism, and to some extent, even capitalism, and the driving factor seems to be less the specific hazards associated with any one of them and more (a) human beings and (b) unreflective, imbalanced zeal.