The statement and the conversation it refers to involve a critique of a public figure's choice of language in their posts. This can be considered public discourse as it engages with the public's perception of the figure's communication style and potentially broader issues of language use in public discussions.
- The statement does not appear to cause harm directly. It expresses confusion or surprise at the criticism received, which is a relatively neutral response.Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement respects the privacy and dignity of others. It does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech. The original critique by @pelldoherty, however, could be seen as bordering on personal attack by questioning the public figure's language choices in a potentially derogatory manner.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 actively promote understanding, empathy, or compassion. It is more defensive in nature. The original critique also does not promote these values, as it questions the public figure's language choices without providing constructive feedback. [-1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement engages in a form of dialogue by responding to the critique, but it does not engage in constructive criticism. The original critique by @pelldoherty could be seen as a personal attack rather than constructive criticism. [-1]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.