Gary Marcus

The statement and accompanying image critique a public figure's unfulfilled promises regarding technological advancements and space exploration. The tone is critical and somewhat sarcastic, aiming to highlight the discrepancy between the promises made and the outcomes achieved.

1. Principle 1:

   I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.

   The statement does not directly cause harm but could be seen as undermining the credibility of the individual in question. It is a critique rather than a personal attack.
2. Principle 2:

   I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.

   The statement respects privacy but does not fully respect the dignity of the individual, as it uses a sarcastic tone to highlight failures. [-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. It focuses on pointing out unfulfilled promises rather than fostering a constructive dialogue. [-1]
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 engages in criticism but does not do so constructively. It uses sarcasm and does not offer a balanced view or potential solutions. [-1]
5. Principle 5:

   I will acknowledge and correct my mistakes.

   The statement does not acknowledge or correct any mistakes made by the author. It focuses solely on the perceived failures of the individual being critiqued.
6. Principle 6:

   I will use my influence for the betterment of society.

   The statement uses its platform to hold a public figure accountable, which can be seen as a form of using influence for societal betterment. However, the sarcastic tone may undermine this intent. [+1]
7. Principle 7:

   I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.

   The statement upholds free speech but could be more responsible and constructive in its critique.