Jill Stien

Rank 39 of 47
|
Score -82

The statement constitutes public discourse as it engages with public issues related to political organization, media representation, and electoral politics. The tone is confrontational and accusatory, and the intent appears to be to challenge George Takei's comment about Jill Stein and the Green Party.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement uses strong language ('BS') and accuses George Takei of 'mindlessly parroting DNC talking points,' which can be seen as harmful and disrespectful. 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, but it does show a lack of respect for George Takei's dignity by using dismissive and accusatory language. This partially violates the principle of respecting the privacy and dignity of others. [-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 is confrontational and accusatory, which can hinder constructive dialogue. This violates the principle of using words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion. [-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 includes a personal attack ('mindlessly parroting') and does not provide a reasoned argument or evidence to support its claims. This violates the principle of engaging in constructive criticism and dialogue without personal attacks. [-2]
  5. 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 lacks responsibility and integrity. The accusatory and confrontational tone does not contribute positively to public discourse. This partially violates the principle of upholding free speech responsibly and with integrity. [-1]