In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
274d
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
274d
The statement critiques the handling of information regarding the closure of a government agency, suggesting disinformation and censorship. It engages in public discourse by addressing government transparency and accountability.
- The statement implies harm by accusing others of disinformation, which could be seen as harmful if not substantiated. [-1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- It does not respect the privacy and dignity of others by labeling them as 'censors' without specific evidence. [-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 a dismissive tone, which could be seen as a personal attack. [-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.
- It attempts to use influence to highlight perceived government overreach, aligning with the principle of using influence for societal betterment. [+1]Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.