Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
328d
The statement and conversation engage in public discourse by discussing government actions, privacy, and leadership. The tone is critical and alarmist, suggesting a threat to freedom and privacy. It implies that similar actions could have occurred in the U.S. if a different political outcome had occurred.
- The statement uses alarmist language that could incite fear, potentially causing harm. [-2]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- It accuses a public figure of tyranny without substantial evidence, which may not respect their dignity. [-2]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 or empathy, focusing instead on fear and division. [-1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement engages in personal attacks rather than constructive criticism. [-2]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.