Matt Taibbi

The statement '#ProofofLife' in the context of the conversation about President Joe Biden's ability to give a televised statement on his decision constitutes public discourse. It engages with a public issue, specifically the health and capability of a sitting president, which is a matter of public concern.

1. Principle 1:

   I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.

   The statement '#ProofofLife' can be seen as sarcastic and potentially harmful, as it questions the president's health in a mocking manner, which could contribute to public distrust and anxiety. This violates the principle of striving to do no harm with words and actions. [-2]
2. 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 respect the dignity of President Biden, as it implies he may not be alive or capable without any substantive evidence. This can be seen as a form of cyberbullying or harassment. [-2]
3. Principle 3:

   I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.

   The statement does not promote understanding, empathy, or compassion. Instead, it appears to mock and undermine the president's capability without constructive dialogue. [-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 statement does not engage in constructive criticism or dialogue. It resorts to a personal attack on President Biden's health and capability, which is an ad hominem argument. [-2]
5. Principle 7:

   I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.

   While the statement falls under free speech, it does not use the platform responsibly or with integrity, as it spreads doubt and potentially misinformation about the president's health without evidence. [-1]