In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
275d
The statement engages in public discourse by discussing the funding and role of the Global Engagement Center (GEC) and its implications for censorship and government spending. It critiques the continuation of funding for the GEC, labeling it as a 'censorship outfit' and supports defunding it.
- The statement uses strong language ('censorship outfit') 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 direct harassment or hate speech, but the term 'thought police' could be seen as disrespectful to those involved with the GEC. [-1]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 constructive dialogue and uses dismissive language ('global censorship bullshit'), which could be seen as a personal attack on those who support the GEC. [-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 influence public opinion against the GEC, aligning with the principle of using influence for societal betterment from the author's perspective. [+1]Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.