Reposted by Bret Baier
The statement constitutes public discourse as it engages with a public policy issue (price controls) and critiques a political figure (Kamala Harris) and her administration's actions. The tone is critical and the intent is to argue against the policy and the political motivations behind it.
- The statement does not directly cause harm but uses strong language ('grotesque') which could be seen as inflammatory. This partially violates the principle of striving to do no harm. [-1]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 critiques a public figure's policy and actions, which is within the bounds of respectful public discourse. [+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 primarily critical and does not offer a constructive alternative or seek to understand the opposing viewpoint. [-1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement engages in criticism but does not appear to engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. It focuses on the policy and political motivations rather than personal characteristics. [+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.
- The statement upholds the principle of free speech and uses the platform to engage in public discourse. However, the responsibility and integrity of the critique could be questioned due to the strong language used. [+1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.