In reply to:
Frank
@richardrahl1086
·
410d
Marianne Williamson
@marwilliamson
·
410d
The statement 'Yeah, that was the defense at Nuremberg too.' constitutes public discourse as it engages with a significant public issue, namely the Supreme Court's decision on bump stocks, and contributes to the civic dialogue by drawing a historical parallel. The tone is confrontational and implies a severe moral judgment.
- The statement does harm by making a hyperbolic comparison to the Nuremberg Trials, which can be seen as inflammatory and disrespectful. [-2]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement does not respect the dignity of others and can be interpreted as a form of harassment by equating a legal opinion with war crimes. [-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 promote understanding, empathy, or compassion; instead, it escalates the conversation with a provocative analogy. [-2]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement does not engage in constructive criticism or dialogue; it uses a personal attack by implying that following the law is akin to defending war crimes. [-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.
- While the statement exercises free speech, it does so irresponsibly by making an extreme and inappropriate comparison. [-1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.