In reply to:
🇺🇲 Defender of Democracy 🇺🇸
@terabytnet
·
108d
Marianne Williamson
@marwilliamson
·
108d
The statement engages in a substantive discussion about political strategy and the potential consequences of unity or division within a political party, which constitutes public discourse.
- The statement does not appear to cause harm with words or actions. It is a reasoned argument about political strategy. [+1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement promotes understanding by explaining why forced unity might not be effective. It does not explicitly promote empathy or compassion, but it does contribute to a thoughtful discussion. [+1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement engages in constructive criticism of the idea of forced unity. It does not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. [+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.
- The statement upholds the principles of free speech and uses the platform responsibly to discuss a public issue. [+2]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.