The one I'll bring up, as an example of "not as political" but still harmful, is used by chuds, libs, and leftists alike as a throwaway putdown, insult, and thought terminating cliche.
"WHO HURT YOU?" :very-intelligent:
The damage it does to social discourse comes from further normalizing the implication that being hurt is a mockable thing that deserves ridicule and dismissal, and the other problem is that it makes sincere suggestions to actually seek actual help, stated in good faith, get lost in the haze of :reddit-logo: tier le epic takedowns.
My runner-up is "grindset." The entire concept is poison and seems to contaminate impressionable brains at an alarming rate. Motivating people to improve themselves and achieve things in a healthy way is harder to do when so much online discourse is chuddy grifters jerking themselves off while bullying people for not "grinding" hard enough, no matter that person's situation.
I think virtue signaling was probably a reactionary term in it's inception and has done more harm than good, but still...I feel like there's still something to the concept. The problem is that like you said: it has ultimately come to refer to anyone who has ever even tried to do anything helpful or socially productive.
It would be more useful as a term for, as an example: people who make their avatars black and/or who kneel in protest that either implicitly or explicitly refuse to support actual policy like policing reform that might actually do something about the problem. See also: every corporation ever that pays lip service to social issues.
Agreed, but I'd argue that's something else, as the effective issue there isn't signalling one's virtue, it's being double-faced, or ultimately apathetic in any meaningful sense.