It doesn’t. It’s a continuous process of listening and learning.
That's one way of looking at it. There is a shadow side, though, which is a continuous process of smothering any disagreement or diversity of ideas and approaches, as if there is "one true way" to look at and understand this and related issues.
That said, I do agree that ideally there's a continuous process of listening and learning, but I think we disagree on how to go about that, and what may or may not be conducive to deepening understanding.
Nobody. Eventually, if people listen honestly and react ethically and morally, incidents will be reduced to a point where it’s just noise in the system. That’s when the remaining concerns will generally be so trivial as to not be addressable at a broad level.
But there's always going to be--at least for the foreseeable future--a gap between a person's intention and how another person interprets their actions. What you say implies that either that isn't the case, or that there is a one-sized fits all formula to ethical action, one morality that we're all aspiring to.
Now maybe there is - but at this point it is an imagination, it is the "best possible world we can dream of." In my view it is based in interconnectedness, underlying oneness, deep compassion and love. It is
not about the proper way to act appropriately in every situation that won't offend anyone, and it allows for a wide diversity of not only expression but ways of thinking and seeing.
There’s a concept in economics that there is an optimum level of crime in any society. IOW, there is a point beyond which it is too expensive for society to expend more resources to prevent a given kind of crime, that the expenditures to do so outweigh the costs of the crime committed. It sucks for the individual, but it’s a good for society as a whole. (At least in terms of economic efficiency.)
Not exactly sure what you're getting at here, but what this brings up for me is gun control. On one hand, I don't like the idea of limiting anyone's freedom because of people who misuse guns...the vast majority of gun owners are responsible (or responsible
enough). But on the other hand, if stricter gun laws will noticeably reduce deaths, I think that the price of slightly diminished personal liberty for some is worth it.
We'll have to disagree on that one as I see that tendency very strongly in that ideological framework.
You can’t spoon-feed understanding.
Differentiation requires exerting some effort on the part of the listener. Even the most condescending explanation of distinctions between Situation One and Situation Two will demand the audience using a couple brain cells to comprehend.
Yes, but what about the listening capacity of the "drumbeater?" As far as I can see, those of that framework are so instistent on their rightness that they tend to disavow the kind of listening that they insist upon from the people they're trying to teach. It has to go both ways. If you want people to listen to you, you have to listen to them as well.
That’s a terrible analogy. Weinstein & CK both did things that were legally wrong. Being inspired by African mythology has NOTHING in common with wearing blackface.
Afaik Louis CK didn't do anything illegal. Furthermore, there is room for interpretation about the morality of what he did. Weinstein is more clear-cut to what degree he abused power. Even if you don't see as large a gap as I do, there is a gap, now? Or maybe if you want something more obvious, how about Bill Cosby and Aziz Ansari? Cosby was possibly the worst serial rapist in modern history, while it is now widely agreed upon that Ansari simply had a bad date that he was unfairly blamed for. But the point is, both received the scrutiny of the Ethical Police - one rightly so, the other not so much.
Only if you stop listening with a critical ear.
Many of the "drumbeat" do very much stop listening. They just want to bang their drum and point their fingers out there.