Jill Stien

Rank 40 of 47
|
Score -71

The statement is a call to action regarding a public issue, specifically protesting against Benjamin Netanyahu and advocating for Lebanon and Palestine. The tone is urgent and accusatory, labeling Netanyahu as a 'war criminal' and demanding his arrest. The content is politically charged and aims to mobilize public opinion and action against Netanyahu's presence in New York.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement uses strong language that could be seen as harmful, particularly the label 'war criminal' without providing evidence or context. This could incite anger or violence, thus violating the principle of doing no harm. [-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 dignity of Netanyahu by labeling him a 'war criminal' without due process, which could be considered a form of harassment or hate speech. [-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 inflammatory language that could deepen divisions. [-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 makes a personal attack by labeling Netanyahu a 'war criminal' and does not provide a platform for discussion or debate. [-2]
  5. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    The statement uses its influence to mobilize people for a cause, but it does so in a way that could be seen as divisive and inflammatory, which may not be for the betterment of society. [-1]
  6. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    While the statement exercises free speech, it does so in a manner that could be considered irresponsible and lacking in integrity due to its accusatory and inflammatory nature. [-1]