In reply to:
Stig (he/him)
@Stigrbrand
·
125d
Dr. Jill Stein🌻
@DrJillStein
·
125d
The statement by @Stigrbrand and the reply by @Stigrbrand engage in a public discourse about the political process of getting a campaign on the ballot, which is a substantive public issue. The reply by @Stigrbrand uses humor to comment on the potential rejection of signatures, implying a critique of the bureaucratic or partisan obstacles in the electoral process. The reply by @Stigrbrand, which consists of laughing emojis, seems to support or find humor in the original comment.
- The statement by @Stigrbrand and the reply by @Stigrbrand do not appear to cause harm directly, but the humor could be seen as dismissive of the serious efforts of the campaign team.Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement respects the privacy and dignity of others, as it does not engage in personal attacks or reveal private information. [+1]Principle 2:I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
- The use of humor in the reply by @Stigrbrand could be seen as promoting understanding through a light-hearted approach, but it might also undermine the seriousness of the issue.Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement and reply engage in a form of dialogue, though the humor might not be constructive criticism. It does not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.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.