Reposted by Jake Tapper
The statement criticizes The New York Times editorial board's decision to stop endorsing candidates in New York state and local political races. The tone is critical and expresses concern about the impact of this decision on NYC politics, suggesting that it will leave the political landscape to be controlled by small interest groups.
- The statement does not appear to cause harm directly, but it is critical of a decision that could be seen as harmful to public discourse. It neither significantly upholds nor violates this principle.Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech. It respects the privacy and dignity of others. [+1]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 promote understanding, empathy, or compassion. It is more focused on criticism rather than fostering a constructive dialogue. [-1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement engages in criticism but does not offer constructive dialogue or solutions. It does not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments, but it could be more constructive.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 exercises free speech and uses the platform to express a viewpoint on a public issue. It does so responsibly and with integrity. [+1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.