Jill Stien

Rank 38 of 47
|
Score -97

The statement engages in public discourse by discussing political candidates and their positions, specifically labeling them as 'pro-genocide' and promoting an alternative candidate. It aims to mobilize support for getting Jill Stein on the ballot in New York, framing the election in terms of moral and ethical choices.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement potentially harms individuals by labeling them as 'pro-genocide' without substantiation, which could spread misinformation and damage reputations. [-2]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement disrespects the dignity of the individuals mentioned by assigning them a highly negative and likely inaccurate label, which could be seen as a form of harassment. [-2]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The use of extreme language ('pro-genocide') may hinder rather than promote understanding and compassion among readers. [-1]
  4. 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 engage in constructive criticism or dialogue; it uses charged language that may polarize rather than foster meaningful discussion. [-1]
  5. Principle 5:
    I will acknowledge and correct my mistakes.
    There is no indication of willingness to correct misinformation, given the extreme and unsupported claims made. [-1]
  6. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    The statement uses its influence to mobilize political support, but it does so through divisive and potentially misleading claims. [-1]
  7. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    While the statement uses its platform to engage in political discourse, the integrity of the message is questionable due to the use of unsubstantiated and inflammatory labels. [-1]