In reply to:
🪐•
@theebronzeangel
·
124d
Dr. Jill Stein🌻
@DrJillStein
·
125d
The statement 'CLOCK THAT TEA' and the subsequent reply with a smiling emoji do not substantively engage with the public issue being discussed, which is the influence of billionaire-funded Super PACs on the democratic process. The original conversation by @DrJillStein raises concerns about the role of wealthy individuals in political campaigns, which is a significant public discourse topic. However, the reply 'CLOCK THAT TEA' and the emoji response are more lighthearted and conversational, lacking substantive engagement with the issue at hand.
- The statement does not cause harm but also does not contribute meaningfully to the discussion.Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement respects privacy and dignity, as it does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.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, as it is more of a casual remark.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, nor does it involve personal attacks.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 use influence for the betterment of society, as it does not contribute to the public discourse meaningfully.Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.