Reposted by Dr. Jill Stein🌻
The statement is a critique of U.S. government spending priorities in the aftermath of a natural disaster, suggesting that funds are being misallocated to foreign aid rather than addressing domestic crises. It uses strong language to express dissatisfaction with current policies.
- The statement uses strong language that could be seen as harmful or inflammatory, particularly in a time of crisis, which may not align with striving to do no harm. [-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, but it does use a derogatory term 'rotten to the core' which could be seen as disrespectful. [-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, as it focuses on criticism rather than constructive dialogue. [-1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement does not engage in constructive criticism or dialogue, as it uses a sweeping generalization and a strong negative characterization of the U.S. government. [-2]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 attempts to use influence to highlight perceived misallocation of resources, which could be seen as an effort to better society by advocating for change. [+1]Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
- The statement exercises free speech but does so in a manner that may not be considered responsible or with integrity due to its inflammatory language. [-1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.