Jill Stien

Rank 44 of 47
|
Score -126

The statement constitutes public discourse as it engages with public issues, specifically media bias, political endorsements, and the integrity of public figures.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not appear to cause direct harm with words and actions, but it does use strong language ('moral vacuity') which could be seen as inflammatory. However, it is primarily a critique of media and political figures rather than an attack on private individuals.
  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. It critiques public figures and institutions, which is a legitimate part of public discourse.ย [+1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement aims to promote understanding of perceived media bias and political hypocrisy. However, the tone is accusatory rather than empathetic or compassionate.
  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 engages in criticism of media and political figures but does not resort to personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. It focuses on actions and behaviors rather than personal characteristics.ย [+1]
  5. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    The statement uses its platform to highlight issues of media bias and political integrity, which can be seen as an attempt to better society by encouraging critical thinking and accountability.ย [+1]
  6. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement upholds the principles of free speech and uses the platform to express a viewpoint on public issues. The integrity of the statement could be questioned due to its strong accusatory tone, but it remains within the bounds of responsible discourse.ย [+1]