In reply to:
brain doc🌺
@NaanPartisan
·
427d
Meg Welch
@MegWelch1
·
428d
The statement is part of a Twitter conversation about the role and responsibilities of a public figure in discussing sensitive topics like censorship and conflict. The speaker acknowledges their expertise in the area of censorship but declines to comment on a specific conflict, stating they are not informed enough to add value to that discussion. This statement is a part of public discourse as it engages with the issue of responsibility and expertise in media discussions on sensitive topics.
- The speaker strives to do no harm by refraining from discussing topics they are not well-informed about, thus avoiding potential misinformation. [+2]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The speaker respects their own limitations and the seriousness of the topic, thus maintaining dignity in discourse. [+1]Principle 2:I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
- By acknowledging their limitations, the speaker promotes a more understanding approach to public discussions, emphasizing the importance of informed commentary. [+1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The speaker engages constructively by clarifying their position and expertise without demeaning others or making personal attacks. [+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 speaker uses their influence responsibly by choosing to speak on topics within their expertise, thus contributing positively to public discourse. [+1]Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.