Jill Stien

Rank 42 of 47
|
Score -86

The statement criticizes the Biden and Harris administration's approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict, suggesting that they could achieve a ceasefire with a single call but instead choose to support Israel unconditionally. The statement also accuses those who believe the administration is working for a ceasefire of manufacturing consent for genocide. The accompanying image from the Wall Street Journal supports the claim that a ceasefire is out of reach for the Biden administration.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement uses strong language and accuses the administration of enabling genocide, which could be seen as harmful and inflammatory. 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 respect the privacy and dignity of others, particularly those who support the administration's efforts, by accusing them of manufacturing consent for genocide. This constitutes a violation of the principle of respecting privacy and dignity. [-2]
  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 uses accusatory and divisive language, which violates the principle of promoting understanding and empathy. [-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 uses personal attacks and ad hominem arguments against those who support the administration's efforts, violating the principle of engaging in constructive criticism and dialogue. [-2]
  5. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    The statement uses its platform to influence public opinion on a significant issue, but it does so in a manner that lacks responsibility and integrity, as it employs inflammatory language and accusations. This violates the principle of using influence for the betterment of society. [-2]