Then it was hypocritical anti-smoking public service. Like somebody taking a massive dump on my porch while telling me that it is bad. I mean, then why are you doing it?
Because some smokers are addicted to nicotine, and can't stop even though they know it's what's killing them, and even knowing that an open flame near an oxygen line is a fire danger that will kill them quicker.
Just because the Marlboro Man looks cool smoking when he's young doesn't mean it's worth having lung cancer later on, as the Marlboro Man lies in a hospital bed with tubes in him.
I don't know any dump-takers with an addition like you describe, so think you have failed to understand my point.
Other addicts are similar. If a homeless alcoholic tells you his life was ruined by his addition to alcohol and that you shouldn't take his path, then takes another swig out of his beer, is that really hypocritical virtue signaling? Or is it truthful advice?
If a heroine addict, in a drainage culvert preparing another dose, looks up at you when you walk by and says "stay off heroin, kid, it will fuck up up" - is that really hypocritical virtue signaling? Or are you going to join him?
If you think all of that is 'virtue signaling', then we have a fundamentally different understanding of what that term means.
Super-rich people are addicted to wealth. They love it. Even when they know their lifestyle is bad, they don't want to give up, even though they could.
Look at them - even their charity work mostly serves [1] to glorify their power and prestige, and whitewash their moral crimes [2].
Every time you think of Bill Gates, of Elon Musk, of Al Gore, remember that they are addicts to wealth, unwilling to give up their addition. And to be clear, I'm not saying I could either, had I their money.
Tax them all, heavily, until they are merely rich - say, $10 million. Provide social workers to help them live a normal life. Get them off their addiction [3].
[1] The two counter-examples I am considering are Dolly Parton and MacKenzie Scott. Scott's philanthropy in particular highlights how the super-wealthy really are more interested in control than giving.
[2] Carnegie, to start a very long list.
[3] The cleverer of them say they need the influence which comes with their wealth to change things for the better, like Warren Buffett and the "Buffett Rule", so can't give up their wealth unilaterally. Let's help those poor sods by taxing them.
Yes smoker telling me that smoking is bad is hypocritical virtue signaling. Rich people telling me to walk so they can hop on their private jet and fly away is hypocritical virtue signaling.
No amount of mental gymnastics you are trying to present here will change it.
