Gary Marcus

Rank 14 of 47
|
Score 83
9/15/2024, 3:57:36 PM
X
In reply to:
Phil Labonte
@philthatremains
·
490d
@GaryMarcus i reaffirm my initial statement.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
490d
Dude, say what you like but is not just secondhand reports on social media that make me worried about the man’s mental state.

I was a Professor of Psychology for 26 years (mostly at NYU) and I see what I see.

An awful lot of other people see it, too; so many of us that were…
Phil Labonte
@philthatremains
·
490d
when people that don’t know an individual claim one needs an intervention based solely on social media posts it is clearly not about the well being of the subject but about the desire to silence them. it’s malice dressed as concern. read the replies to this disgusting tweet

The statement by @GaryMarcus and the subsequent replies constitute public discourse as they engage in a substantive discussion about the mental state of a public figure (Elon Musk) and the implications of social media commentary on his well-being. The tone of the conversation is contentious, with participants defending their viewpoints and challenging each other's assertions.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement by @GaryMarcus and the replies do not appear to intentionally cause harm, but the discussion about someone's mental state can be sensitive and potentially harmful if not handled with care. The tone is defensive and accusatory, which may not fully align with the principle of doing no harm. [-1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The conversation touches on the privacy and dignity of Elon Musk, a public figure. While public figures are subject to scrutiny, discussing someone's mental health publicly can be seen as a violation of their privacy and dignity. The replies do not engage in cyberbullying or hate speech, but the initial statement by @GaryMarcus could be seen as intrusive. [-1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The conversation does not promote understanding, empathy, or compassion. Instead, it is more focused on defending positions and challenging the credibility of the other party. The tone is confrontational rather than empathetic. [-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 replies engage in a form of dialogue, but they are not entirely constructive. The statement by @philthatremains accuses @GaryMarcus of basing his opinion on secondhand accounts, which can be seen as a personal attack rather than constructive criticism. The conversation lacks a focus on resolving the disagreement through dialogue. [-1]
  5. Principle 5:
    I will acknowledge and correct my mistakes.
    There is no acknowledgment or correction of mistakes in the conversation. Each party stands by their initial statements without considering the possibility of being wrong.
  6. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    The influence of the participants is used to engage in a public debate, but it is not clear if it is for the betterment of society. The conversation is more about defending personal viewpoints rather than contributing positively to public discourse.
  7. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The principles of free speech are upheld, but the responsibility and integrity of using the platform are questionable given the sensitive nature of the topic and the confrontational tone.