If you look just above that, I was responding to "only time I've ever heard anybody talk about how much they like meat," not about virtue signalling.

You're right. Sorry about that.

The rest of the behaviors you mentioned, including the quotes of other people in this thread, are just things that you find objectionable. They're not virtue signalling. Virtue signalling has a clear definition. Someone bringing up how their diet is better because they enjoy meat, or it's healthier, may be annoying, but is not virtue signalling. Someone bringing up their diet in a conversation, unsolicited, to tell you about how it's better for the environment, is. Someone talking shit about vegans or making sweeping generalizations about them, may be an asshole, but is not virtue signalling.

People need to take the fucking chips off their shoulders. Not everyone is judging you. The idea that people made a life choice for themselves isn't somehow an attack on everyone else. If someone goes to the gym 4 times a week, that isn't an attack on everyone who doesn't.

Sure, I agree. Except that most people here have become wary of "tolerance" as a Trojan Horse for authoritarians to get their foot in the door and later impose their morals and laws on other people.

Furthermore, if a behavior is deemed to be harmful (such as in this case - veganism that lead to animal abuse, ironically one of the things it's supposed to solve), people are going to criticize it. This thread wasn't a case of "hey guys I REALLY FUCKING HATE VEGANS HERE'S MY BLOGPOST", it was a reaction to an event about how veganism almost killed some puppies.

And for what it's worth, I really don't agree with the sweeping generalizations here and I think lots of people here just enjoy making shallow generalizations about groups they dislike.