Mike Johnson

Rank 40 of 47
|
Score -93

The statement constitutes public discourse as it engages with a public issue, specifically the interpretation and application of Title IX and gender theory. The tone is assertive and celebratory, indicating a victory for a particular viewpoint. The intent is to inform and rally support for the decision made by the federal judge and to criticize the Biden Administration's stance on gender theory.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not strive to do no harm, as it uses charged language like 'radical rewrite' and 'harmful gender theory,' which can be seen as inflammatory and divisive. [-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 respect the dignity of others, particularly those who support the Biden Administration's interpretation of Title IX or who identify with the gender theories being criticized. It can be seen as engaging in a form of cyberbullying or harassment. [-2]
  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 takes a strong oppositional stance without acknowledging the complexities of the issue. [-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 strong, polarizing language and does not invite discussion or understanding from those who disagree. [-2]
  5. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    The statement uses its platform to influence public opinion, but it does so in a way that is divisive rather than unifying. [-1]
  6. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement upholds the principle of free speech but does so in a manner that lacks responsibility and integrity, given its inflammatory and divisive language. [-1]