Jill Stien

Rank 28 of 47
|
Score 32

The statement and its context involve a call to action for political engagement, specifically related to ballot access for a political candidate. It also references a conversation that includes strong language and criticism of political figures, which can be considered part of public discourse as it engages with public issues and political debates.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The use of strong language such as 'Fuck 'em both' can be seen as harmful and inflammatory, potentially inciting negative emotions and conflict. This violates the principle of striving to do no harm with words and actions. [-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 engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech directly, but the use of expletives and aggressive language can be seen as disrespectful and undignified. [-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. Instead, it uses divisive and confrontational language, which can hinder 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 uses personal attacks and ad hominem arguments against political figures, which is counterproductive to meaningful discourse. [-2]
  5. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    The statement aims to use influence for political engagement, which can be seen as an attempt to better society. However, the aggressive tone undermines this goal.
  6. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    While the statement exercises free speech, it does so in a manner that lacks responsibility and integrity, given the use of inflammatory language. [-1]