Jill Stien

Rank 39 of 47
|
Score -84

The statement by @ThirdWayMattB and the subsequent reply by @DrJillStein constitute public discourse as they engage in a substantive debate about political agendas, patriotism, and the implications of supporting certain policies. The tone is confrontational and accusatory, with both parties making strong claims about each other's political stances and motivations.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement by @ThirdWayMattB and the reply by @DrJillStein both contain accusatory language that could be considered harmful. @ThirdWayMattB's use of 'Kremlin talking points' and 'Putin-loving Russian asset' are strong accusations that could harm reputations. @DrJillStein's reply calling @ThirdWayMattB a 'propagandist for empire' is also harmful.Ā [-2]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    Both statements fail to respect the dignity of the other party. The use of terms like 'propagandist' and 'Russian asset' can be seen as forms of harassment or hate speech.Ā [-2]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    Neither statement promotes understanding, empathy, or compassion. The tone is adversarial and dismissive, focusing on attacking the other's character rather than fostering constructive dialogue.Ā [-2]
  4. 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 statements do not engage in constructive criticism or dialogue. Instead, they resort to personal attacks and ad hominem arguments, undermining the potential for meaningful discussion.Ā [-2]
  5. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    While both parties are exercising their right to free speech, the manner in which they do so lacks responsibility and integrity. The accusatory and hostile language detracts from a respectful and productive public discourse.Ā [-1]