In reply to:
Shameless 🔜 The Gates Of Hell
@jeoc42
·
571d
The statement in question is part of a broader conversation about the credibility and sourcing of information related to a public figure, which constitutes public discourse. The tone is critical but not overtly hostile, and the intent appears to be to question the reliability of the information being discussed.
- The statement does not appear to cause harm with words and actions. It is a critique of the vagueness of sourcing, which is a legitimate concern in public discourse. [+1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement respects the privacy and dignity of others. It does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech. [+1]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 explicitly promote understanding, empathy, or compassion, but it does encourage a critical examination of information sources, which can be seen as promoting a more informed public.Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement engages in constructive criticism by pointing out the vagueness of the source without resorting to personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. [+1]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 upholds the principles of free speech and uses the platform responsibly by questioning the reliability of information in a civil manner. [+1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.