Reposted by Jake Tapper
The statement involves a public figure discussing a matter related to government ethics and transparency, which are public issues. The tone suggests a defensive stance regarding the non-discussion of an ethics report, and the intent appears to be to justify opposition to the release of the report.
- The statement does not directly cause harm but could be seen as avoiding accountability, which might indirectly harm public trust. [-1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.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 focuses on justifying a lack of discussion on an ethics report. [-1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement does not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments, but it does not encourage constructive dialogue either.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 could be seen as using influence to withhold information, which may not align with societal betterment if transparency is valued. [-1]Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
- The statement upholds free speech but may not use the platform responsibly if it avoids addressing important ethical concerns. [-1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.