I truly do not know what chaotic hell society would be condemned to if we didn’t have the ever so wise pantheon of celebrities to inform us of our moral and intellectual shortcomings. Lost we would be, without the checkmarks of the verified to beacon our horizons! Who would sing to us in hastily produced selfie videos? Tell us to vote in literally naked political ploys? Challenge our fundamental views of binary gender concepts? Just writing this is beginning to give me a headache. Earlier this week, fashion and celebrity magazine Vogue featured One Direction star Harry Styles on their cover as he wore a blue Gucci gown, a stunt that once again proved that if you’re a good-looking celebrity you can pretty much do whatever you want. The ‘Applause’ sign flashed, and the mainstream received the cover with praise of Styles’ bravery and defiance of the heteronormative.

Where there’s a proposition, however, there’s opposition. Black conservative political activist Candace Owens voiced her views on Twitter, claiming that the celebrity playing ‘dress-up’ was part of a cultural persecution of masculinity and Western values. Ben Shapiro, another conservative political commentator backed up Owens, stating that the donning of ‘floofy dresses” perpetuates a “referendum on masculinity.” Actress Olivia Wilde retorted with the sharpest of wit and intellect: “You’re pathetic.” Actor Elijah Wood also joined in the ‘dance of the checkmarks’ clarifying educatively that masculinity does not in fact constitute a man. While I had been writing this, US Congresswoman Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez thought it also necessary to echo the mainstream sentiment to her Twitter constituency. Other celebrity commentators such as Zach Braff, Kathy Griffin, and Logan Paul also weighed in on the matter as apparent moral arbitrators for the public.

The conversation to be had about the perceived role of masculinity in society is a migraine-inducing mess no matter what angle you choose to take. Some claim that it is a liability of toxicity and the perpetuation of negativity in modern culture. Others see masculinity positively, with admiration as the compulsion on which society itself is constructed. Both these views, however, tie back to deeper political alignments; Owens’ tweet, for instance, was entirely consistent with the belief in traditional masculinity as a net positive and as fundamental. Notice that Owens also cited the teaching of Marxism to schoolchildren as also symptomatic of sabotage by Eastern rivals seeking to gain an advantage by subverting Western culture. By contrast, it is appropriate to infer, that those who believe in progressivism value the subversion of heteronormative behaviors and see the dissolution of traditional values as a positive move. Because of these deeper philosophical roots, the conversation at any productive capacity should require nuance, give and take, compromise, and not blunt witticisms.

In my own view, it was silly of Owen’s and Shapiro to take offense at the stunt. I can hardly imagine that any of their own fans or followers were in any danger of suddenly donning dresses as a whim themselves. The nagging need to escape the psychological prisons of masculinity by seeking to acquire and wear some designer Game of Thrones inspired frock is likely inexistent in such circles. Of all the issues that one could contend with in a dramatic year like this one, an identity crisis around wearing dresses comes off as a rather privileged one. A proclivity for designer women’s dresses seems quite well suited to a fashion-minded popstar, but this is an unlikely case for any working-class individuals.

Topical involvement has once again provided the commentators with an opportunity to drum up engagement with followers and fans, as well as some time in the limelight of the ‘trending’ tab. The truth of the matter was that everyone involved profited in attention on the matter: Vogue profited from featuring Styles, Styles from being featured, Owens from commenting, Shapiro from defending Owens, and each celebrity who managed to get their jab in touting their own view on the matter also gained attention and sustained popularity. So, if everyone just sounded off to people who already agree with them, then what was the point? If I was being optimistic, I might try and offer that it was all an opportunity to share views and try to reconcile differences of opinion to better work towards a more harmonious society. It is more probable, however, that this was simply a display of celebrity social virtue which has fueled the philosophical divides and exploited the opinionated for gain.

Tomorrow, someone else will say something stupid that we could have otherwise inferred from the obvious. We will all immediately form opinions and launch them into the digital aether with little to no consideration past whether or not the hashtag was correctly spelled. Just as this one has, that scandal and our opinions on it will serve no purpose. Instead of a conversation between two friends which may have better served to reconcile views and work towards a harmony of beliefs, we will continue to argue uncompromising rhetorical points online. Those liberally aligned will continue to cheer and champion progressive movements and signals offered by mainstream media. Others more conservatively aligned will gravitate towards alternative culture’s reply as to why the mainstream has it wrong and we should instead continue to value ‘insert topic here’. All I know is that I’m glad that somebody with a verification checkmark will just tell me what to think about it because I am exhausted.