Reposted by Dr. Jill Stein🌻
The statement is a critical commentary on political strategy and moral positioning, specifically addressing the issue of justifying harmful actions for strategic gains. The tone is confrontational and provocative, intended to challenge and criticize those who justify severe moral compromises for political reasons.
- The statement uses harsh language ('genocide', 'cracked brain') which could be seen as harmful or inflammatory, thus not fully adhering to the principle of doing no harm with words. [-1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement respects the privacy and dignity of others in a general sense, as it does not target individuals directly but rather criticizes a group's actions or beliefs. [+1]Principle 2:I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
- The statement does not promote understanding, empathy, or compassion. Instead, it uses strong language that might alienate or provoke those with differing views. [-1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- While the statement engages in criticism, it borders on personal attack ('How cracked does your brain have to be') rather than purely constructive dialogue, which does not fully uphold this principle. [-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 aims to use influence to critique and potentially correct what the speaker sees as a moral failing in political strategy, aligning somewhat with the principle of using influence for societal betterment, though the approach might not be the most effective. [+1]Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.