Reposted by Dr. Jill Stein🌻
The statement by @RepJeffries and the reply both constitute public discourse as they engage with public issues, specifically political policies and actions related to voter suppression, abortion care, and democracy.
- The reply does not appear to cause harm with words and actions. It is a factual statement about The Heritage Foundation's bipartisan work. [+1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The reply respects the privacy and dignity of others and 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 reply does not explicitly promote understanding, empathy, or compassion, but it does provide a counterpoint to the original statement.Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The reply engages in constructive dialogue by providing a counterpoint 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 reply upholds the principles of free speech and uses the platform responsibly by contributing to the public discourse with a factual statement. [+1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.