Jill Stien

Rank 38 of 47
|
Score -97

The statement 'How did we become a country that supports genocide?' is provocative and addresses a serious public issue, potentially related to foreign policy, human rights, or domestic policies. The tone is accusatory and implies a strong condemnation of certain actions or policies. The link to a website titled 'x.com' is ambiguous and does not provide context for further analysis.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement is accusatory and could be seen as harmful, especially if it lacks context or evidence. This could incite anger or fear without constructive dialogue. [-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 does not directly engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech, but its accusatory nature could indirectly contribute to a hostile environment. [-1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not promote understanding, empathy, or compassion. It is more likely to polarize and provoke rather than foster constructive dialogue. [-2]
  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 makes a broad accusation without specifics, which can be seen as a form of rhetorical attack rather than a basis for discussion. [-2]
  5. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    The statement uses strong language that could influence public opinion, but it does not clearly aim for the betterment of society. It lacks constructive elements that would guide positive change. [-1]
  6. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement exercises free speech but does so in a way that may not be responsible or with integrity, given its lack of context and potential to incite negative reactions. [-1]