Reposted by Matt Taibbi
The statement is part of a conversation that engages with the issue of civil liberties, censorship, and the comparison of political ideologies in different countries. It critiques the perceived hypocrisy in the U.S. approach to civil liberties compared to Russia and China, and comments on the shift in liberal politics over time. The tone is critical and somewhat sarcastic, and the intent is to challenge and provoke thought on the consistency of political values and actions.
- The statement does not appear to do harm but uses strong language that could be perceived as harsh.Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement respects privacy and dignity, and does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech. [+1]Principle 2:I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
- The statement attempts to promote understanding by highlighting perceived contradictions in political attitudes, but lacks a compassionate approach.Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement engages in criticism but borders on personal attacks by labeling a group's behavior as 'crazy', which could be seen as an ad hominem argument. [-1]Principle 4:I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
- The statement uses influence to critique societal issues, but it's unclear if it's for the betterment of society as it may polarize rather than unite.Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
- The statement upholds free speech and uses the platform to engage in a responsible manner, although the integrity of the argument could be questioned due to the tone used. [+1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.