Jill Stien

Rank 17 of 47
|
Score 115

The statement criticizes a political party, suggesting that they frequently break promises, particularly in relation to climate change. The tone is accusatory and aims to discredit the party's efforts on a significant public issue.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly cause harm but could contribute to a polarized environment. It does not promote violence or direct harm, so it partially adheres to this principle. [+1]
  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. It focuses on the actions of a political party rather than attacking individuals, thus respecting privacy and dignity. [+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. It is critical without offering constructive dialogue or solutions, thus violating this principle. [-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 makes a broad accusation without specific evidence or an invitation for discussion, thus violating this principle. [-2]
  5. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    The statement uses influence to criticize a political party, which can be seen as engaging in public discourse. However, it does not offer a constructive path forward, thus partially adhering to this principle. [+1]
  6. 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 not use the platform responsibly or with integrity, as it lacks evidence and constructive dialogue, thus partially violating this principle. [-1]