The statement engages in a public discourse about the issue of censorship on social media platforms, particularly in the context of private versus official censorship. The tone is confrontational and dismissive, calling the opposing argument 'stupid.' The intent appears to be to challenge the idea of adding official censorship to existing private censorship.
- The statement does not strive to do no harm with words and actions, as it uses the word 'stupid' to describe the opposing argument, which can be seen as harmful and disrespectful. (-2 points) [-2]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement does not respect the dignity of others by calling the argument 'stupid,' which can be seen as a form of verbal harassment. (-2 points) [-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 promote understanding, empathy, or compassion. Instead, it dismisses the opposing view without engaging in a constructive manner. (-2 points) [-2]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement does not engage in constructive criticism or dialogue. It resorts to a personal attack by calling the argument 'stupid,' which is an ad hominem argument. (-2 points) [-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.
- The statement does engage in free speech and addresses a public issue, but it does so in a manner that lacks responsibility and integrity due to its dismissive and confrontational tone. (-1 point) [-1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.