Reposted by Dr. Jill Stein🌻
The statement involves a discussion about the Los Angeles Times' decision not to endorse a presidential candidate due to the Biden/Harris administration's support for Israel's actions in Gaza, which the speaker equates to genocide. It also references the personal experience of the speaker's father with apartheid, adding a historical and personal dimension to the public issue being discussed.
- The statement does not appear to cause harm directly but uses strong language ('genocide') to express a critical viewpoint, which could be seen as inflammatory. [-1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement respects privacy and dignity, focusing on public figures and issues rather than personal attacks. [+1]Principle 2:I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
- The statement attempts to promote understanding by explaining the rationale behind the non-endorsement decision, though the use of the term 'genocide' may polarize rather than foster empathy.Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement engages in dialogue about a controversial decision without resorting to personal attacks, though it uses strong language to express disagreement. [+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 uses the speaker's influence to highlight a significant public issue, aiming to provoke thought and discussion. [+1]Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
- The statement upholds free speech by expressing a critical opinion on a public issue, using the platform responsibly to discuss a matter of public concern. [+1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.