Reposted by Dr. Jill Stein🌻
Keith Ellison
@keithellison
·
473d
The statement and the surrounding conversation constitute public discourse as they engage in a substantive debate about political figures, their records, and their impact on public issues such as climate change, health care, and criminal justice. The tone is critical and somewhat confrontational, aiming to challenge the credibility and actions of Dr. Jill Stein and other political figures.
- The statement does not appear to cause direct harm but is critical in nature. It questions the credibility of Dr. Jill Stein without resorting to harmful language. [+1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement respects the privacy and dignity of others, focusing on public actions and records rather than personal attacks. However, the surrounding conversation includes some accusatory language that borders on disrespect.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 explicitly promote understanding, empathy, or compassion. It is more focused on criticism and questioning the actions of a political figure. [-1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement engages in constructive criticism by questioning the record and actions of Dr. Jill Stein. However, the surrounding conversation includes some personal attacks and ad hominem arguments, particularly in the replies.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 upholds the principles of free speech and uses the platform to engage in a political debate. It does so responsibly by focusing on public records and actions rather than personal attacks. [+1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.