In reply to:
Glenn Greenwald
@ggreenwald
·
174d
The statement constitutes public discourse as it engages with a public issue, specifically the perceived shift in political alignments and attitudes towards national security agencies among American liberals and conservatives. The tone is critical and accusatory, suggesting that the liberal establishment has abandoned its core values and become complicit in supporting the national security surveillance and censorship state.
- The statement does not directly cause harm but uses strong language ('blinded by orchestrated TDS') that could be seen as inflammatory. This could potentially harm the discourse by escalating tensions rather than fostering understanding. Minor violation. [-1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech. It criticizes a group (the liberal establishment) rather than individuals, which is more acceptable in public discourse. Adheres to the principle. [+1]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 promote understanding, empathy, or compassion. It is accusatory and does not seek to bridge divides or foster dialogue. Significant violation. [-2]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement does not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments but criticizes a broad group. However, it does not offer constructive criticism or dialogue. Minor violation. [-1]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 exercises free speech and addresses a public issue, but the tone and approach could be more responsible and constructive. Minor violation. [-1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.