The backlash we face as advocates for inclusive social progress will overwhelm us if we continue to cling to moral absolutes. In an information ecosystem designed to amplify division and provoke outrage, we must be wiser and more deliberate in how we engage. Moral outrage, while often rooted in righteous intent, tends to spiral into a reflexive, counterproductive force. Our success depends on redefining our relationship with outrage and focusing on strategies that unite rather than divide.
Consider the recent uproar over Elon Musk’s controversial gesture, which can understandably be interpreted as reminiscent of a Nazi salute. While I empathize with how unsettling this may feel and understand the instinct to condemn, I am determined to approach such moments with greater care and thoughtfulness. Rushing to judgment based on appearances alone—particularly in today’s climate of social and political polarization—plays directly into the hands of those eager to discredit the diversity movement.
Science exists to uncover truths that humans cannot reliably discern. Confirmation bias—our tendency to see only what aligns with our beliefs—can pull us into outrage traps, diverting attention from deeper, more critical questions. In today’s attention economy, moral outrage has become one of the most powerful drivers of social media engagement—the primary revenue driver for all social media platforms. This design fuels sensational content over thoughtful discourse and reinforces echo chambers at the cost of meaningful progress.
Since purchasing Twitter, Musk has repeatedly shown a willingness to bait moral outrage—a tactic that rightly raises concern. Thoughtful critics like Sam Harris have addressed this issue in depth (see his essay here). However, outright vilification does little to persuade others or advance the values we aim to uphold. It’s crucial to recognize that Musk’s flaws do not erase his extraordinary contributions to science, technology, and humanity. There’s a reason so many Americans continue to admire him. His story, like any complex individual, demands far more nuance than the polarizing narratives we often fall into.
Musk often comes across as socially awkward—a trait he’s openly attributed to his place on the autism spectrum. As a neurodiverse individual, those committed to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) may be wise to approach his actions with deeper empathy and understanding.
Bear in mind that not long ago Musk was widely considered an American treasure, a man who used to champion socially progressive ideals. From consistently advocating for climate action to gender equality and exploring universal basic income, his vision often aligned with inclusivity, justice, and collective social progress. Perhaps instead of narrowly fixating on a single post or awkward gesture, it’s prudent to consider what we have done, as a society, to alienate someone who once stood for these values. How did the people who pride themselves on inclusion lose someone like Musk?
If we’re serious about progress, we need to move beyond condemnation and toward introspection and productive discourse. This isn’t just about Elon Musk—it’s about all of us. Building an inclusive, coherent society means asking the tough questions and confronting our own biases. Only then can we create the kind of environment where diverse perspectives can thrive.
Even if you believe Elon Musk is guilty of what’s been alleged (indeed, even if you are right), this Nazi-esque “salute” is far from the best evidence to make your case. As in any debate, the strength of your argument matters. Some evidence is subjective; some speculative. Like a detective working to prove their case, it pays to gather objective evidence before entering the court of public opinion. No matter the substance of the argument, when we amplify weak or ambiguous claims, we undermine our legitimacy.
Why has DEI become so easy to vilify along partisan lines?
Why is resistance growing among the very people we aim to uplift?
A significant factor backed by robust scientific evidence: in-group rigidity. Insights from Jay Van Bavel, Professor of Psychology and Neural Science at New York University, illustrates that strong group identities can amplify moral certainty and suppress dissent. Jay, a longtime friend and intellectual sparring partner, has further shown through his research how shared identities can foster loyalty and cohesion but also lead to rigid, exclusionary thinking when the group prioritizes moral absolutes over critical dialogue.
In the diversity movement, this dynamic often surfaces as a “guilty until proven innocent” posture, where swift judgment and moral certainty overshadow inclusive engagement. While this approach often stems from a genuine desire to protect shared values, it risks alienating allies and undermining the movement’s credibility. To advance diversity, we need to abandon moral grandstanding.
In a deeply divided nation, we cannot afford to be distracted by fleeting moments of outrage. Right now, we are vulnerable to our most tribal instincts—reflexive, emotional reactions that undermine problem-solving and leave our greatest challenges unresolved. To create real progress, we must choose our battles wisely and prioritize coherence over chaos. Outrage may feel satisfying in the moment, but it rarely fosters meaningful dialogue or systemic change.
The diversity movement is at a crossroads. To succeed in a fractured America, we need to reinforce our passion for justice with far greater poise, critical thinking, and strategic vision—even when it's hard, even when it’s uncomfortable, and especially when it’s emotional.
Let’s ask ourselves: Are we building bridges, or are we making it easier for others to burn them down?
If this essay resonated with you, it is part of Breaking the Spell, a series exploring the deeper forces shaping modern life: technological acceleration, institutional pressure, cultural narratives, biological necessity, and the environments that shape how we think, decide, and live together.
The aim is not commentary, but clarity — to slow the forces that rush us toward easy answers and recover the space in which better questions can be asked.
If that kind of inquiry matters to you, consider subscribing.
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.