Ayanna Pressley

Rank 4 of 47
|
Score 190

The statement by @DerrickNAACP, 'Laphonza Butler: We deserve a president who shatters the boundaries of what's possible, not the boundaries of what's legal,' constitutes public discourse as it engages with public issues and debates, specifically the qualities and actions of political leaders. The statement is a response to a conversation about political figures and their actions, thus contributing to civic dialogue.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not appear to cause harm directly, but the implication that a president should shatter boundaries of what's legal could be seen as promoting potentially harmful behavior. This is a minor violation. [-1]
  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 engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech. It respects the privacy and dignity of others. [+1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not explicitly promote understanding, empathy, or compassion. It is more focused on a political critique.
  4. 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 not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. It critiques a general idea rather than attacking an individual personally. [+1]
  5. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    The statement uses influence to critique political actions, which can be seen as an attempt to better society by advocating for lawful behavior in leadership. However, the phrasing could be interpreted as encouraging unlawful actions, which is a minor violation. [-1]
  6. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement upholds the principles of free speech and uses the platform to engage in political discourse. However, the suggestion of shattering legal boundaries could be seen as irresponsible, which is a minor violation. [-1]