Reposted by Dr. Jill Stein🌻
The statement criticizes the political choices available within the two-party system in the United States, particularly focusing on the perceived support for Israel by both major parties. It suggests that this support is a reason to consider third-party alternatives. The tone is critical and suggests a call to action for voters to consider other options.
- The statement does not directly harm with words, but the use of charged terms like 'zionist apartheid' could be seen as inflammatory. [-1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement does not engage in cyberbullying or harassment, but the language could be interpreted as hate speech against a particular group. [-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 promote understanding, empathy, or compassion, as it uses divisive language. [-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 broad generalization and does not address specific policies or actions. [-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 attempts to use influence to encourage consideration of third-party alternatives, which could be seen as an effort to better the political landscape. [+1]Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
- The statement exercises free speech but could be more responsible in its language to avoid divisiveness. [-1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.