Gary Marcus

Rank 14 of 47
|
Score 83
9/5/2024, 7:14:31 PM
X
In reply to:
Paul Topping (@paultopping.bsky.social)
@PaulTopping
·
498d
@schwabsauce @GaryMarcus If Putin was ambiguous, it was only to maintain the façade that Russia isn't involved in manipulating the US election. Putin wants Trump to win. How could he not? And to even consider Putin's stated opinion on Harris's qualifications is just bizarre.
Michael Schwab
@schwabsauce
·
498d
@GaryMarcus Putin was ambiguous. He was clearly joking but also considers Harris so unqualified that it could be his preference. Likely, either outcome is fine for him.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
498d
Is David Sacks really that stupid?
David Sacks
@DavidSacks
·
498d
All Americans should stand against Putin by rejecting his preferred candidate, the weak and ineffectual Kamala Harris.

The statement by @PaulTopping and the subsequent replies constitute public discourse as they engage in a substantive discussion about the influence of foreign leaders on U.S. elections, a significant public issue. The conversation involves opinions on the motivations and actions of political figures, which are relevant to civic dialogue.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement by @PaulTopping and the replies do not appear to cause harm directly. However, the initial comment by @GaryMarcus calling someone 'stupid' could be seen as harmful and disrespectful.
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The conversation respects the privacy of individuals but does not fully uphold the dignity of others, particularly with the use of derogatory language. [-1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The discussion promotes understanding of the issue of foreign influence in elections, but the tone could be more empathetic and compassionate. [+1]
  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 conversation includes elements of personal attacks, particularly in the initial comment by @GaryMarcus, which detracts from constructive criticism and dialogue. [-1]