In reply to:
David Sacks
@DavidSacks
·
101d
The statement '@DavidSacks Which is a reply to the following conversation: @DavidSacks: One candidate survived assassination. The other staged a coup. Your choice, America.' refers to a political discussion about candidates and their actions. This constitutes public discourse as it engages with public issues and debates about political figures and their actions.
- The statement does not directly cause harm but could be seen as contributing to a polarized and potentially harmful discourse by framing the discussion in a confrontational manner. [-1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech, but it does involve a contentious political debate that could be seen as disrespectful to the individuals involved. [-1]Principle 2:I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
- The statement does not promote understanding, empathy, or compassion. Instead, it contributes to a divisive and confrontational dialogue. [-2]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement does not engage in constructive criticism or dialogue. It frames the discussion in a binary and adversarial manner, which could be seen as a form of personal attack or ad hominem argument. [-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 principle of free speech but does not use the platform responsibly or with integrity, as it contributes to a polarized and potentially harmful discourse. [-1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.