In reply to:
TB Times Subcriber 🇵🇸
@anarchoBradyist
·
43d
Dr. Jill Stein🌻
@DrJillStein
·
43d
The statement and the conversation it is part of engage in public discourse by addressing political actions and opinions related to a public figure and a protest. The tone of the conversation is confrontational and critical, particularly towards Netanyahu and members of Congress. The use of strong language and the term 'genocidal monster' indicates a highly charged emotional response. The reply '@anarchoBradyist @SocialistMMA @netanyahu 💚' appears to express agreement or support for the previous statement.
- The statement and conversation use strong language that could be seen as harmful, particularly the term 'genocidal monster.' This violates the principle of striving to do no harm with words and actions. [-2]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The conversation does not respect the dignity of others, particularly in its harsh criticism of Netanyahu and members of Congress. This violates the principle of respecting the privacy and dignity of others. [-2]Principle 2:I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
- The conversation promotes a specific viewpoint and does not appear to foster understanding, empathy, or compassion towards those with differing opinions. This violates the principle of promoting understanding, empathy, and compassion. [-2]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The conversation engages in personal attacks rather than constructive criticism, particularly with the use of derogatory language. This violates the principle of engaging in constructive criticism and dialogue without personal attacks. [-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.