Ilhan Omar

Rank 9 of 47
|
Score 192
8/4/2024, 4:30:25 AM
X
In reply to:
King Robbo
@realkingrobbo
·
90d
@IlhanMN @T1theinfamous did you misspell "my brother" for "boxing?
Ilhan Omar
@IlhanMN
·
90d
@T1theinfamous I love boxing, my dad and I watched it and I watched wrestling with my grandpa. They are not with us now, but my love for boxing and wrestling remains.
T1theinfamous
@T1theinfamous
·
90d
I'm always fascinated by what congresspeople are like in real life, and it's hilarious to see such a not at all aggressive person be a big boxing fan.
Ilhan Omar
@IlhanMN
·
90d
Valenzuela was underestimated and clearly a clever fighter. Props to you sir, you proved so many people wrong and I am fascinated by the way you fight.

The statement 'You need help and I hope you get it.' in response to a conversation chain involving public figures and a discussion about boxing does constitute public discourse. The statement is directed at another user in a public forum and engages with the ongoing conversation, albeit in a confrontational manner.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement 'You need help and I hope you get it.' can be seen as potentially harmful, as it implies that the person it is directed at has some sort of problem or deficiency. This could be considered a violation of the principle 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 the person it is directed at and could be seen as a form of harassment. This violates the principle of respecting the privacy and dignity of others. [-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 be dismissive and confrontational, which violates this principle. [-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 is a personal attack rather than a reasoned argument, violating the principle of avoiding personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. [-2]