Reposted by Vivek Ramaswamy
Vivek Ramaswamy
@VivekGRamaswamy
·
393d
The statement engages in public discourse by addressing the allocation of NIH grant funds and critiquing the overhead costs associated with university funding, which are public issues related to government spending and educational policy.
- The statement does not directly harm others with words or actions, but it does use strong language like 'useless bureaucracy' which could be seen as dismissive. [-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, but it does use dismissive language towards certain university practices.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 criticism without offering constructive solutions. [-1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement engages in criticism but lacks constructive dialogue or engagement with opposing views, focusing instead on a negative portrayal. [-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 influence to highlight perceived inefficiencies in public funding, which could be seen as an attempt to better society by advocating for change. [+1]Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
- The statement upholds free speech by expressing a critical opinion on public funding, but the responsibility and integrity of the platform could be questioned due to the lack of constructive dialogue.Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.