It seems weak and prissy and the opposite of compelling and logical and forceful.
ChatGPT says: Because “distasteful” is doing alliance work, not moral work.
Among educated elites, open condemnation is risky. Strong moral language signals passion, anger, or certainty. Those are traits associated with lower-status moralists, activists, or populists. Saying something is evil, immoral, corrupt, or wrong commits you to a fight. It invites demands for action and consistency. It creates enemies.
“Distasteful” avoids all of that. It is deliberately thin. It registers disapproval without asserting authority or obligation. It says I personally recoil, not that you must stop. That makes it socially safe.
It also marks class. “Distasteful” is aesthetic language. It treats moral conflict as a matter of taste, refinement, and sensibility rather than right and wrong. That is a reliable high-status move. The speaker presents themselves as cultivated and emotionally regulated. They are too refined to be outraged.
There is also coalition logic. Educated environments are pluralistic and fragile. People disagree sharply about morals and politics but still need to work together. Aesthetic condemnation lets someone signal distance without triggering escalation. It is a way to say I am not with that, while keeping the alliance intact.
Finally, it is a dominance move disguised as modesty. Calling something distasteful subtly demotes it. You are not arguing with it. You are wrinkling your nose at it. That frames the speaker as above the fray and the target as beneath serious engagement.
You are right that it sounds weak and prissy. That is the point. Weakness here is protective. Prissiness is a status signal. “Distasteful” is condemnation for people who want to be seen as superior without taking responsibility for judgment or action.
