Tony Heller, Exposed
@HellerExposed
·
503d
The statement in question is part of a Twitter conversation chain that discusses the credibility of a whistleblower's allegations and the involvement of scientists in verifying claims. This conversation touches upon issues of misinformation, media integrity, and public trust, which are relevant to public discourse.
- The statement does not directly cause harm but may contribute to a dismissive tone towards another's viewpoint.Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement respects privacy and does not engage in 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 lacks efforts to promote understanding or empathy, focusing instead on discrediting another's claim. [-1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement engages in a form of dialogue but leans towards skepticism without constructive engagement, potentially dismissing the other party's views without thorough consideration. [-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 does not clearly use influence for societal betterment, as it primarily disputes another's credibility. [-1]Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
- The statement uses the platform to challenge views, which is a form of engaging with free speech, but it could be argued that it lacks full responsibility and integrity in fostering informed public discourse.Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.