Rashida Tlaib

Rank 2 of 47
|
Score 221

The statement is a reaction to a Supreme Court decision and addresses the public issue of gun violence and judicial actions, making it a part of public discourse. The tone is highly critical and emotionally charged, expressing strong disapproval of the Supreme Court's decision.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement uses strong language ('blood on its hands,' 'unhinged') which could be seen as harmful and inflammatory, potentially inciting anger or hostility. 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, but the use of terms like 'unhinged' could be seen as disrespectful to the dignity of the Supreme Court justices. [-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 accusatory and inflammatory language, which can polarize 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 includes personal attacks ('unhinged Supreme Court') and ad hominem arguments, which detract from a reasoned debate on the issue. [-2]
  5. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    The statement uses the platform to address a significant societal issue (gun violence), but the manner in which it is done may not contribute positively to the betterment of society due to its divisive tone. [-1]
  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 may not be considered responsible or with integrity due to its inflammatory language. [-1]