In reply to:
Trevor Parsons
@DartmouthCommon
·
530d
Marianne Williamson
@marwilliamson
·
530d
The statement by @DartmouthCommon and the reply by @NDP engage in a discussion about political platforms and media influence, which constitutes public discourse. The tone of the reply suggests a critical stance towards media portrayal and political strategy, implying that there was an intentional effort to mislead the public.
- The statement does not appear to cause direct harm with words and actions, but it does imply that there was an intentional effort to mislead, which could be seen as harmful to public trust. Minor violation. [-1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech. It maintains respect for privacy and dignity. Adheres well. [+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 explicitly promote understanding, empathy, or compassion. It is more focused on criticism. Neutral.Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement engages in criticism of media and political strategies but does not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. Adheres well. [+2]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 upholds the principles of free speech and uses the platform to express a critical opinion responsibly. Adheres well. [+2]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.