Marianne Williamson

Rank 17 of 47
|
Score 69
5/17/2024, 11:20:55 AM
X
In reply to:
Soxaholic
@MikeBrennan330
·
427d
@marwilliamson That’s the same bill of goods Chavez peddled in Venezuela & Fidel fed to Cubans. And what Hamas & PA tell Palestinians. If we only eliminate wealth & the wealthy ….

Are those your models of freedom & equality?
Marianne Williamson
@marwilliamson
·
427d
What a brilliant and diabolical move: to train people to expect too little, to so normalize economic oppression that it begins to feel to the oppressed like some form of perverse comfort zone. 5/5
Marianne Williamson
@marwilliamson
·
427d
In no other advanced democracy is providing universal healthcare, tuition free college and tech school, and subsidized childcare considered “giving people free shit.” 4/5
Marianne Williamson
@marwilliamson
·
427d
While $50 trillion has been transferred from the bottom 90% to the top 10%, many are convinced any crumbs given to to public sector for support of the common good is “giving people free shit.” 3/5
Marianne Williamson
@marwilliamson
·
427d
Over the last 50 years, the “common good” has been given a bad name. The private sector has been celebrated, the public sector treated like an element to be little more than tolerated until it can be done away with forever. 2/5
Marianne Williamson
@marwilliamson
·
427d
The role of government is to broker a balance between individual liberty - including financial liberty - and concern for the common good. 1/5

The statement '@MikeBrennan330 That is so not what I said.' is a direct response in a chain of tweets discussing significant societal issues such as economic policies, public welfare, and governance models. The conversation involves a critique of economic oppression and the role of government in balancing individual liberty with the common good, which are substantive public issues. Therefore, this statement is part of a broader public discourse.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly cause harm but lacks clarity and constructive engagement, which could lead to misunderstandings. [-1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement respects privacy and dignity, avoiding any personal attacks, harassment, or hate speech. [+1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not effectively promote understanding, empathy, or compassion, as it is brief and does not contribute to a deeper understanding of the issue. [-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 fails to engage in constructive criticism or dialogue. It is a rebuttal without explanation, which does not facilitate productive discourse. [-2]