Virtue Signaling vs. Genuine Compassion in Advocates

Virtue Signaling in the World of Scam Victim Advocacy

In any field involving service to others, especially where emotions run high and trauma is real, the difference between meaningful support and performative behavior matters. Scam victim advocacy is no exception. Within this community, most individuals commit their time and energy to supporting others with care, humility, and practical guidance. But as in many advocacy spaces, the presence of virtue signaling—acting supportive for the sake of appearance—can quietly undermine the mission, damage relationships among advocates, and ultimately harm the very victims the field is meant to support.

This article explores what virtue signaling is, why it matters in scam victim advocacy, how it differs from genuine compassion, and why it often leads to conflict among advocates themselves.

What Is Virtue Signaling?

Virtue signaling is the public display of moral superiority or righteousness, often through words, gestures, or actions, primarily to gain social approval rather than to effect real change. Coined in the mid-2010s and popularized by writers like James Bartholomew, it’s about projecting an image—“Look how good I am”—more than delivering substance. In the scam victim advocacy world, it might look like an advocate loudly decrying scammers on social media, collecting likes and retweets, while doing little to help victims recover.

Think of it as performative empathy: a loud megaphone with a weak follow-through.

The term has gained traction in recent years, often used to describe people who make grand statements on social media, use emotionally loaded language, or insert themselves into conversations in order to appear virtuous. At its core, virtue signaling is about appearances. The motive is not to serve others, but to gain recognition, status, or praise for having the “right” stance on an issue.

With Scam Victims

In the context of scam victim advocacy, this might include public declarations of support, outrage against scammers, or alignment with victim narratives—but without any consistent, behind-the-scenes effort to actually help individuals recover, find resources, or regain stability.

For Example:

this might look like someone repeatedly posting emotional content about justice for victims while privately offering little guidance, listening, or support. It might include using hashtags, calling for action, or criticizing others for not doing enough—all while lacking personal involvement in real cases or engagement with victims’ needs.

Why Is Virtue Signaling a Bad Thing?

Overview

It’s not inherently evil, but it’s problematic for several reasons.

• • • First, it prioritizes the signaler’s ego over the victim’s needs. An advocate might post a tearful video about scam horrors to seem caring, but if they don’t offer practical aid—like resources or counseling referrals—it’s just noise.
    • Second, it dilutes trust. Scam victims, already burned by deception, are hyper-vigilant; they can smell inauthenticity a mile away, and virtue signaling reeks of it.
    • Third, it wastes energy. Time spent crafting the perfect “I stand with victims” tweet could go toward actual support—say, lobbying for better laws like the Romance Scam Prevention Act.

Data’s thin, but a 2022 X.com sentiment analysis showed 60% of scam-related posts were emotional outbursts with no actionable content, hinting at signaling’s prevalence.

In-Depth: Why Virtue Signaling is Harmful

Virtue signaling becomes a problem when it takes up space that could otherwise be filled by practical help. Scam victims do not need to see more outrage—they have already lived the consequences of fraud and deception. What they need is someone who will listen, who understands how to guide them toward recovery, and who can help them separate fact from fiction in their emotionally shaken state.

When virtue signaling dominates a conversation or community, the actual work of supporting victims becomes secondary to the goal of appearing moral or aligned with the cause. Instead of service, the focus shifts to identity—how the advocate sees themselves and how they want to be seen. This can lead to messaging that centers the advocate rather than the victim. When an advocate talks more about how hurt they are for the victim or how angry they are about injustice—without offering solutions, structure, or calm guidance—it places the emotional weight on the wrong person. The victim is then left to process not only their own trauma but the dramatic performance of the person meant to support them.

Worse still, victims may begin to question their own responses. If the advocate’s reaction is extreme or theatrical, victims might feel like their emotions aren’t enough, or they may hesitate to express uncertainty, grief, or even self-blame out of fear of being judged. This creates distance, not trust, and leaves victims feeling alone, even in the presence of someone claiming to be on their side.

How Does Virtue Signaling Differ from Real Compassion?

Overview

Real compassion is action-driven, victim-focused, and often quiet; virtue signaling is self-centered and loud. Picture two advocates:

• • • Compassionate Advocate: Meets a romance scam victim privately, listens to their story, connects them to a therapist, and researches scam patterns to warn others. No fanfare—just results. They’re fueled by empathy, what psychologists like Paul Bloom call “effective altruism”—helping because it works, not because it’s seen.
    • Virtue Signaler: Posts a public rant about scammers, tags influencers for clout, and basks in “You’re so brave!” comments. The victim’s a prop; the spotlight’s the goal. It’s what Bloom critiques as “empathy for show”—feeling good about feeling bad.

For traumatized crime victims, compassion offers tangible relief: financial recovery tips, emotional validation, legal advocacy. Signaling offers platitudes—“Thoughts and prayers”—that evaporate fast. A 2021 study on trauma recovery found peer support with practical steps cut PTSD symptoms by 30% more than verbal sympathy alone. Compassion builds; signaling postures.

In-Depth: Real Compassion vs. Virtue Signaling

The difference between virtue signaling and real compassion is in focus and outcome. Genuine compassion is quiet, consistent, and centered on the needs of the other person. It involves showing up in real time, listening with patience, and offering guidance without demanding recognition. It often requires the advocate to set aside their ego and do the unglamorous work—reviewing a victim’s communication history, helping them secure their accounts, contacting platforms, or simply sitting with them while they process shock and grief.

True compassion is also flexible. It recognizes that each victim’s path is unique. There is no single correct emotional response to a scam, and no timeline that dictates how someone should recover. Compassion allows for this complexity and avoids making the advocate the center of the narrative.

By contrast, virtue signaling tends to reduce experiences to slogans or dramatic generalizations. The focus shifts from victim-centered support to advocate-centered emotion. Instead of asking what the victim needs, virtue signaling asks, “How do I look when I say this?” or “Am I seen as the good one in this conflict?” It does not build trust. It builds performance.

In practical terms, this might look like an advocate repeatedly making public statements condemning scammers, while privately failing to follow up with actual victims. It might involve over-sharing a victim’s story for impact or failing to refer someone to a professional when their situation requires more than emotional validation.

How Does It Create Conflict with Other Advocates?

Overview

Virtue signaling ignites tension among scam victim advocates because it clashes with the gritty reality of the work and exposes motives. Here’s how:

• • • Resource Competition: Serious advocates hustle for grants, volunteer hours, or victim trust—finite resources. A signaler swoops in with a viral post, siphoning attention without contributing, leaving others resentful. On X, I’ve seen advocates call out “grifters” who fundraise off victim stories then vanish—echoes of this dynamic.
    • Moral High Ground Fights: Signalers often escalate rhetoric—“I care more than anyone!”—forcing others to either match the noise or look uncaring. A 2023 thread on scam advocacy saw two groups spar over who “really” supported victims, with one side accused of “hashtag heroism.” It’s a purity spiral, not progress.
    • Victim Harm Backlash: When signalers overpromise—say, “We’ll stop all scams!”—and underdeliver, victims get hurt again. Genuine advocates, cleaning up the mess, grow bitter. One X user vented, “Stop parading victims for likes—it’s why they don’t trust us.” The conflict festers as trust erodes.
    • Authenticity Divide: Compassionate advocates, often victims themselves, grind in the trenches—think SCARS Institute’s detailed guides. Signalers, chasing applause, skim the surface. This breeds disdain; a 2024 X post griped, “Some ‘advocates’ just want TED Talk invites, not solutions.” It’s a rift between doers and talkers.

In-Depth: The Conflict It Creates Among Advocates

Within advocacy communities, especially in the scam recovery space, virtue signaling often leads to internal conflict. When one advocate appears to be performing for recognition, others who are working quietly but consistently may feel unseen or dismissed. This tension can lead to fractures between advocates, especially when attention-seeking behavior masks a lack of experience or training.

Additionally, virtue signaling often involves moral superiority—suggesting that one’s approach is more righteous than others’. Advocates who virtue signal may begin to criticize or undermine others in the field, not based on effectiveness or integrity, but based on who is getting the most attention or approval. This creates a hostile environment where collaboration is replaced with competition.

In some cases, advocates begin arguing over who is “more victim-centered,” rather than actually being victim-centered. This creates confusion for victims, who may see public disagreements among supposed allies and begin to distrust the entire advocacy community. Worse, it can lead to silos of behavior—where each advocate or group builds their own platform without sharing knowledge or referring victims to others who might better serve them.

When advocacy becomes more about protecting reputation than serving victims, everyone loses. Victims do not receive the focused, coordinated support they need. Other advocates become burned out or frustrated. The field itself loses credibility.

Real-World Echoes

Take romance scam advocacy. A compassionate advocate might quietly build a course like ‘Breaking Free’ (see www.SCARSeducation.org) teaching victims to spot red flags. A signaler might blast “Scammers are monsters!” on TikTok, racking up views but leaving victims no wiser. The former’s impact lasts; the latter’s fades with the algorithm. Conflict erupts when signalers hog the stage, drowning out the doers—think of a rally where one group’s megaphone overshadows another’s handouts.

Why It Matters

Virtue signaling in the scam victim support space is not just a distraction—it is a betrayal of trust. When someone experiences a scam, their world collapses quickly. They may lose money, confidence, safety, relationships, and self-worth. In that fragile moment, what they need most is clear, grounded, and experienced support – they need the absolute truth. What they too often find, however, is noise—emotional posturing, superficial concern, or moral performance masquerading as help.

This is where virtue signaling becomes harmful in very practical ways. It presents a false sense of safety. It says, “Look how much I care,” while offering little substance. For scam victims, who are already sorting through layers of deception, this false ‘allyship’ adds another layer of confusion. They may trust a voice that looks passionate but lacks structure, skill, or follow-through. And when that support evaporates—or turns judgmental, defensive, or dismissive—it reinforces their core trauma: betrayal.

Jordan B. Peterson’s perspective fits here uncomfortably well. He often warns that evil disguises itself in virtue and sentimentality. “The worst outcomes,” he says, “often come from people who insist they are only doing good.” In this context, the person loudly sobbing for justice might be comforting themselves, not the victim. Their public tears might serve their image, not the survivor’s path forward. They may not even realize they’re doing it.

Real compassion doesn’t just feel—it acts. It is steady, sober, and intentional. It means showing up when the attention is gone, when the headlines have faded, and when the victim is still grappling with sleepless nights and paperwork. It means knowing what not to say, who to refer to, how to hold emotional boundaries, and how to protect a victim’s dignity, not parade their pain.

Within the advocacy community, virtue signaling also creates division. It draws a sharp and unspoken line between those who are doing the difficult work and those who want the recognition without the responsibility. This divide breeds resentment, burns out serious advocates, and creates a culture where victims must choose between performance and substance—often without knowing which is which.

If you’ve been in this space long enough, you’ve likely seen this dynamic play out. Maybe it was someone who inserted themselves into a high-profile scam story for attention, only to disappear when the hard questions came. Maybe it was a self-appointed advocate attacking others online for not caring “enough,” while refusing to collaborate or follow best practices. Maybe it was someone turning a victim’s story into their content, without consent or follow-up care.

These are not just missteps—they are symptoms of a deeper problem: when advocacy becomes about the advocate, not the victim. And that is not just unhelpful. It’s dangerous.

What Authentic Advocacy Looks Like

To avoid these problems, advocates need to routinely examine their own behavior and motives. Supporting scam victims is not about being seen as virtuous—it is about helping real people navigate a deeply confusing, humiliating, and destabilizing experience.

Authentic advocacy involves humility, emotional discipline, and practical knowledge. It means listening more than talking, offering fewer opinions and more resources, and making space for victims to express doubt, confusion, and pain without judgment.

If you are supporting scam victims, ask yourself:

• Am I doing this for the person in front of me, or to reinforce something about myself?
• Do my actions center the victim’s needs, or my emotional response to their story?
• Do I step back when someone more qualified can help, or do I hold on to the spotlight?
• Do I work to build trust among other advocates, or do I position myself as the moral standard?

These are not easy questions, but they are necessary. The work of supporting scam victims is complex. It requires more than passion—it requires integrity, boundaries, and the willingness to let victims have the center of the stage.

Conclusion

Virtue signaling is not always obvious, but its effects are felt. In the world of scam victim advocacy, it distracts from real support, introduces unnecessary conflict among helpers, and risks alienating the very people the work is meant to serve. It offers performance where quiet, steady care is needed.

Real compassion asks nothing in return (other than the participation of the victim for their own good but at their pace.) It does not demand visibility. It stays with the victim long after the headlines fade. In this field, the most valuable advocates are not the loudest—they are the ones still answering messages at 2 a.m., still checking in weeks after a scam, still learning and adjusting their approach without needing to prove anything to anyone.

As you continue in this space—whether as an advocate, supporter, or survivor—remember that your quiet consistency matters more than any public stance. Stay focused on the person in need, not the performance, and you will always be on the right side of the work.