The statement 'Can’t play with kid gloves when the other side is trying to draw blood' in the context of a conversation about a court case involving political figures, as shared on social media, does constitute public discourse. It engages with a public issue, specifically the legal and political treatment of a public figure, and uses metaphorical language to comment on the perceived intensity and fairness of the situation.
- The statement implies a justification for harsh or aggressive actions, which could indirectly endorse harm through words or actions. [-1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement respects privacy but might compromise the dignity of others by using combative language.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, focusing instead on conflict. [-1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement does not engage in constructive dialogue but rather supports a confrontational approach. [-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 stir strong emotions rather than for the betterment of society. [-1]Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.