Reposted by Dr. Jill Stein🌻
The statement highlights a perceived change in Kamala Harris's stance on the border wall issue, comparing her past and present positions. It suggests a shift in policy or opinion, which is a matter of public interest and debate, thus constituting public discourse.
- The statement does not directly cause harm but could contribute to political polarization if not presented with context.Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement respects privacy and dignity, focusing on public statements by a public figure.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 or empathy, as it lacks context or explanation for the change in stance. [-1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement does not engage in personal attacks but could be seen as critical without constructive dialogue. [-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 does not acknowledge or correct any mistakes, as it is a comparison of past and present statements.Principle 5:I will acknowledge and correct my mistakes.
- The statement uses influence to highlight a political issue, but it does not clearly aim for societal betterment.Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
- The statement upholds free speech but could use more context to responsibly inform the public.Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.