Reposted by Dr. Jill Stein🌻
The statement engages in public discourse by addressing significant public issues such as US military aid, fossil fuel production, and political mandates. It critiques political stances and policies, particularly in the context of international relations and environmental concerns.
- The statement uses strong language like 'genocide' which could be seen as harmful or inflammatory, potentially violating the principle of doing no harm. [-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 use of hashtags like #GazaGenocide could be seen as provocative.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 presents a polarized view without fostering 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, instead it presents a stark contrast between two positions without room for discussion. [-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 sway public opinion towards voting for a specific political outcome, which could be seen as using influence for societal betterment, depending on perspective. [+1]Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
- The statement exercises free speech but could be seen as lacking responsibility and integrity due to its polarizing and potentially inflammatory nature. [-1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.