Reposted by Dr. Jill Stein🌻
The statement appears to be a critique of US corporate journalism, using a metaphor that compares disliking genocide to insisting on a luxury item, implying a trivialization of serious issues. The tone is sarcastic and critical, suggesting that the media is not adequately addressing important topics.
- The statement uses sarcasm, which could be seen as harmful or dismissive of serious issues like genocide. [-1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement does not engage in cyberbullying or hate speech, but the metaphor could be seen as disrespectful to the gravity of genocide. [-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 uses sarcasm to critique journalism. [-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 metaphor to mock rather than discuss. [-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 but does so in a way that may not be responsible or constructive. [-1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.