Gary Marcus

Rank 12 of 47
|
Score 83
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
507d
13 million views, no community note, and the first sentence is an absolute lie.

Neither Walz’s brother or sister are in this photo of “the *entire* family”; these are “distant cousins”, if the photo is even real. (Note the nose on the guy with the baseball hat, the old woman…
9/5/2024, 1:20:10 AM
X
In reply to:
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
507d
It is - and you, Elon, are f’ing it up by reposting Russian propaganda.

Hope you are proud of yourself.
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
·
507d
I have never been materially active in politics before, but this time I think civilization as we know it is on the line.

If we want to preserve freedom and a meritocracy in America, then Trump must win.

The statement by @GaryMarcus constitutes public discourse as it engages with a public issue, specifically the dissemination of information and political endorsements. The tone is accusatory and confrontational, directly addressing @elonmusk's actions and their perceived impact on public discourse.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement violates the principle of striving to do no harm with words and actions. The use of strong language ('f’ing it up') is aggressive and could be seen as harmful. (-2 points) [-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 publicly accuses @elonmusk of spreading propaganda without a constructive approach. (-2 points) [-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. Instead, it escalates the conflict and does not seek to understand the other party's perspective. (-2 points) [-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. It resorts to a personal attack rather than addressing the issue in a manner that could lead to a productive discussion. (-2 points) [-2]