Reposted by Matt Taibbi
The statement criticizes two venues for allegedly refusing to host a discussion on a controversial topic related to COVID-19, suggesting censorship or bias. It raises issues of free speech and the open exchange of ideas, particularly in scientific discourse.
- The statement could be seen as attempting to hold venues accountable, but it may also contribute to public distrust without full context. [-1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement does not engage in harassment or hate speech, but it does publicly criticize specific organizations.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 engage in personal attacks but criticizes organizations' decisions, which could be seen as constructive criticism. [+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 its platform to highlight an issue of public concern, potentially encouraging dialogue on scientific discourse and censorship. [+1]Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
- The statement advocates for free speech by criticizing the refusal to host a discussion, aligning with principles of open dialogue. [+1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.