In reply to:
JL-Dill
@DillonJodi198
·
106d
Marianne Williamson
@marwilliamson
·
106d
The statement by @marwilliamson constitutes public discourse as it engages with a substantive public issue, namely the potential expansion of the Supreme Court, which is a significant topic in civic dialogue. The tone is corrective and aims to clarify a previous statement, indicating a willingness to engage in constructive dialogue.
- The statement does no harm and seeks to clarify a previous position, which aligns with the principle of striving to do no harm with words and actions. [+1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- By clarifying her stance, @marwilliamson promotes understanding and potentially empathy, as she is addressing a concern raised by another user. [+1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement engages in constructive dialogue by acknowledging the correction 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 explicitly acknowledges a mistake and corrects it, which aligns well with the principle of acknowledging and correcting mistakes. [+2]Principle 5:I will acknowledge and correct my mistakes.
- The statement upholds the principles of free speech and uses the platform responsibly by engaging in a substantive issue with integrity. [+1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.