Vivek Ramaswamy

Rank 15 of 47
|
Score 68

The statement addresses a public issue, specifically the European Union's immigration policies and the fines imposed on Hungary. It draws parallels to the situation in the United States, making it a part of public discourse.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement uses strong language such as 'deranged' and 'outrageous,' which could 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 derogatory language towards the EU's policies and bureaucrats could be seen as disrespectful. This partially violates the principle of respecting the privacy and dignity of others. [-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 takes a confrontational stance, which could polarize opinions rather than foster constructive dialogue. This violates the principle of promoting understanding, empathy, and compassion. [-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, negative language and makes broad generalizations about the EU and its bureaucrats, which can be seen as personal attacks. This violates the principle of engaging in constructive criticism and dialogue without personal attacks. [-2]
  5. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement exercises free speech but does so in a manner that could be considered irresponsible due to its inflammatory language. This partially violates the principle of using one's platform responsibly and with integrity. [-1]