So I get what "virtue signaling" is: someone saying or doing something that serves no purpose except to illustrate their own (supposed) virtuousness. One example which comes to mind--which will probably offend some people--is the various ribbons people display, to say, "I am opposed to [certain bad thing]." Or, since no one brags about being in favor of [certain bad thing], often the ribbon is expressing something even weaker: "I am aware of the existence of [certain bad thing]." Well, good for you. Sort of.
But some "alt right" jokers have gotten into the habit of throwing the "virtue signaling" label at anyone who philosophically argues in favor of something that is actually righteous. The implication is basically, "You may be right, but you're only arguing that to make other people think you're virtuous!" I suspect that is often a result of psychological projection.
I propose a new term, to be applied to those who try to use things like "purist" as an insult--those who complain, for example, at those of us who continue to advocate non-aggression and self-ownership even in cases where authoritarian violence might better serve our own personal interests. Such people object to people abiding by actual principles, and instead like to babble on and on about being "practical," being "realistic," being "nuanced," and so on.
So it occurs to me that such people are loudly and proudly displaying the absence of any underlying principles or solid moral code, and as such, are engaged in "lack-of-virtue signaling." And the Orange Fuhrer himself may be the poster child for this "lack-of-virtue signaling," and that may actually be a significant factor in how he garners popular support: others who are proudly self-centered, unprincipled, opportunistic, obnoxious, narcissistic assholes feel empowered by seeing one of their own sitting on the throne.
Just a thought.