Reposted by Dr. Jill Stein🌻
The statement 'Begs the question What happened to AOC?' and the subsequent conversation constitute public discourse as they engage with public issues and policies, specifically those related to political integrity, healthcare, student loan cancellation, climate justice, and other societal concerns.
- The statement does not directly cause harm but implies a negative change in AOC's motivations, which could be seen as harmful if unfounded. [-1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech, but it does question AOC's integrity in a public forum.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 promote understanding, empathy, or compassion; it is more accusatory in nature. [-1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement does not engage in constructive criticism or dialogue; it implies a personal attack on AOC's character. [-2]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 uses influence to question a public figure's integrity, which could be seen as contributing to public accountability but lacks constructive elements.Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
- The statement upholds free speech but could be more responsible and constructive in its approach.Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.