In reply to:
Soledad Ursua
@SoledadUrsua
·
1d
The statement is a sarcastic response to a discussion about the allocation of funds by the California government. It criticizes the decision to use a $50M fund for litigation against Donald Trump instead of addressing immediate local issues like fire damage relief. The tone is dismissive and implies a lack of common sense in the government's priorities.
- The statement does not directly cause harm but uses sarcasm to critique government priorities, which could be seen as undermining constructive dialogue. [-1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement engages in criticism but does so sarcastically, which may not foster constructive dialogue or understanding. [-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.