Jill Stien

Rank 42 of 47
|
Score -114

The statement is a public discourse as it addresses societal issues related to climate change, fossil fuel funding, and geopolitical concerns involving Israel and Palestine. The tone is urgent and accusatory, aiming to draw attention to the actions of Citibank and their perceived negative impact on the environment and geopolitical stability.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement uses strong language ('death and destruction') which could be seen as harmful and inflammatory, potentially inciting anger or hostility. This violates the principle of striving to do no harm with words and actions. [-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 engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech directly, but the accusatory tone towards Citibank could be seen as lacking respect for the dignity of the institution and its employees. [-1]
  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 uses a confrontational tone that may polarize rather than unite. [-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 makes strong accusations without offering a platform for discussion or understanding. [-2]
  5. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    The statement uses its influence to draw attention to important issues, which can be seen as an attempt to better society. However, the confrontational tone may undermine this effort. [+1]
  6. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement exercises free speech but does so in a manner that may not be considered responsible or with integrity due to its accusatory and inflammatory language. [-1]