Is Virtue Signaling In An Argument A Fallacy?

In answer to the question posted earlier today, Dr. Bo answered with the historian’s fallacy.  In his discussion of that fallacy, Dr. Bo warns against "Virtue Signaling", which I see is defined as "the sharing of one's point of view on a social or political issue in order to garner praise or acknowledgment of one's righteousness from others."

I think we see a lot of that today in political arguments (I'm guilty of it too); if used in an Argument as an attempt to establish a point (rather than using evidence to support the point), I would think that is a fallacy, perhaps an instance of red herring.   It may be used as  a way of saying "righteous people (like me) support my position".  

What fallacy is that?

An example of virtue signaling might be posting a photo of yourself driving alone in your own car wearing a mask with caption, "You can never be too safe! #AlwaysWearAMask". It is unreasonable to be wearing a mask alone in your own car? Sure. And perhaps this person can argue:

P1. You should do everything you can to prevent infecting others with COVID.

P2. Wearing a mask all the time, no matter where you are or whom you are with, will help prevent infecting others with COVID.

Therefore, you should wear a mask when driving alone in your own car.

Despite this argument being unreasonable, it is not fallacious. The unreason lies in the first premise. We can disagree with the first premise and through a reductio, show how that premise leads to ridiculous conclusions.

While virtue signaling does lead to people behaving unreasonably, it is not a fallacy.

Virtue signalling itself isn't a fallacy. It could be used as one depending on context.

E.g. "All morally righteous people support X. That's why I support X." This would fall under prejudicial language. The assertion is that if you are "morally righteous" - like the speaker - you'll support X. It's typically followed up with "if you're against X, then you're part of the problem", which is a way of guilting you into accepting a proposition without evidence out of fear of being 'part of the problem'.