Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 83
8/8/2024, 11:38:42 PM
X
In reply to:
Bruce E. Bailey, CRM/FED
@bbailey39
·
530d
@GaryMarcus Frankly, do you know anyone in the Federal Government, much less all politicians who do not merit that hyphenated word? I worked there for 9 years and can't remember any. (Well maybe 1 or 2).
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
530d
Sorry! In the post below I made a mistake, and left out an important hyphenated word, before felon, which was “cognitively-impaired”, as in “MAGA stuck too long behind their cognitively-impaired candidate”.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
534d
What historians will say: the democrats stood up and made changes, while MAGA made snide remarks and stood by their felon, all the way to defeat.

The statement by @bbailey39 and the subsequent reply by @GaryMarcus engage in a discussion about the competence of individuals in the Federal Government, specifically in the context of political leadership and cognitive abilities. The conversation touches on public issues related to political leadership, government competence, and the performance of elected officials, thus constituting public discourse.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement by @GaryMarcus uses a derogatory term 'cognitively-impaired' to describe a political candidate, which can be harmful and disrespectful. 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 use of the term 'cognitively-impaired' to describe a political candidate is disrespectful and does not uphold the dignity of others. 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 uses a derogatory term to criticize a political figure, which can be seen as divisive. [-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. Instead, it resorts to a personal attack by using a derogatory term to describe a political candidate. [-2]
  5. Principle 5:
    I will acknowledge and correct my mistakes.
    @GaryMarcus acknowledges a mistake in a previous post, which aligns with the principle of acknowledging and correcting mistakes. [+1]
  6. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    The statement does not use influence for the betterment of society. Instead, it uses a derogatory term to criticize a political figure, which can contribute to a negative and divisive discourse. [-2]