Reposted by Dr. Jill Stein🌻
The statement and the conversation it replies to engage in public discourse by discussing political figures and their actions, which are relevant to societal issues. The tone is confrontational and critical, with strong language used to express dissatisfaction with certain politicians and their perceived actions or affiliations.
- The statement uses derogatory language ('pricks') and makes a strong accusation ('stanning for genocide Joe'), which can be harmful and inflammatory. This violates the principle of striving to do no harm with words and actions. [-2]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement does not respect the dignity of others, as it engages in name-calling and harsh criticism without constructive dialogue. This violates the principle of respecting the privacy and dignity of others. [-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 fosters division and animosity. This violates the principle of using words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion. [-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 personal attacks and ad hominem arguments, which violate the principle of engaging in constructive criticism and dialogue without personal attacks. [-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.