Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 84
9/2/2024, 10:13:26 PM
X
In reply to:
Stephen Smith
@SteveSailorMan
·
522d
@GaryMarcus Gary. I think we get it. But do you realize that by sharing these things, and not for example one of my wholesome posts for a great week e cause, we only amplify them.

So if you share posts like this. More people will see posts like this. I’m trying to help families and kids…
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
522d
Fight fire with fire? Quit the platform?

I just don’t know what to do anymore.

I feel gross even being here.
Eliot Higgins
@EliotHiggins
·
522d
Can you believe he wears that outfit!?

The statement 'Did you see what Higgins was responding to? He was fighting fire with fire.' is part of a broader conversation involving public figures and controversial imagery. The conversation touches on sensitive topics, including political figures and the use of provocative imagery, which can contribute to public discourse. The tone of the statement suggests a justification for retaliatory behavior, which can be problematic in maintaining constructive dialogue.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not strive to do no harm, as it justifies retaliatory behavior, which can escalate conflicts and cause harm. [-2]
  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 respect the privacy and dignity of others, as it is part of a conversation that includes derogatory and inflammatory imagery. [-2]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not promote understanding, empathy, or compassion, as it supports a 'fight fire with fire' approach, which is adversarial rather than constructive. [-2]
  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 constructive criticism or dialogue, as it supports retaliatory behavior rather than seeking resolution or understanding. [-2]