There is no word for proudly flaunting your vices, because the culture already calls that authenticity.
The linguistic architecture of modern moral discourse contains a conspicuous gap. “Virtue signalling” exists as a fully weaponised accusation, deployed reflexively against anyone who makes a public moral claim. But no equivalent term exists for the public display of vice. Posting drunken nights, flaunting sexual promiscuity, celebrating excess, all of it is simply called “being real” or “living your truth.” The behaviour is identical in structure: a public performance intended to communicate something about the self to an audience. But the cultural response is inverted. One earns mockery. The other earns applause.
This is not a coincidence. Languages develop terms for the concepts their cultures need to police. The existence of “virtue signalling” as a pejorative reflects a culture that has become suspicious of moral speech. The absence of “vice signalling” reflects a culture that no longer recognises vice as a category worth policing. When the moral framework itself has been evacuated, there is nothing left to signal against. Degeneracy does not need a policing term because it has already been normalised as the default mode of public self-presentation.
The result is a closed system. If you speak about halal and haram publicly, you are virtue signalling. If you post your nights out drinking, you are authentic. If you speak about divine accountability, you are an extremist. If you flaunt the very behaviours Islam identifies as destructive, you are brave. The system has no mechanism for recognising its own inversion. Vice signalling is not merely the unnamed counterpart to virtue signalling. It is the proof that the moral vocabulary has been captured.