In reply to:
Brizzy
@Brizzy420420
·
140d
The statement 'Land distribution causing drought…?' by @Brizzy420420 constitutes public discourse as it engages with a public issue, specifically the causes of drought in Southern Africa, and responds to a conversation about climate change and policy impacts.
- The statement does not directly cause harm but could be seen as dismissive of the complex issue of drought, which might indirectly cause harm by oversimplifying the problem. [-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 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 of a rebuttal without providing constructive insights. [-1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement engages in dialogue but does not provide constructive criticism or a well-reasoned argument. It is somewhat dismissive and does not foster a productive conversation. [-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 exercises free speech but does not use the platform responsibly to contribute meaningfully to the discussion. [-1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.