Marianne Williamson

Rank 17 of 47
|
Score 68
2/26/2025, 5:46:07 PM
X
In reply to:
Reform LACCD - Los Angeles Valley College
@LaccdW
·
145d
@marwilliamson How very condescending. The public isn’t rallying to you and your response is to call them “blind” - you like to run for office (and lose), LACCD Board of Trustees has elections every year.
Marianne Williamson
@marwilliamson
·
145d
But those who are truly robbing you blind, who represent a level of theft exponentially larger than that perpetrated by the interests of the poor, live behind ivy covered walls, live and work in places from which you will forever be excluded, and use the invisibility cloak…
Marianne Williamson
@marwilliamson
·
145d
If a poor person represents a group of people that exploit you in some way , you have probably seen them, perhaps in your own neighborhood or workplace. Your frustration, even anger, might be understandable. 2/3
Marianne Williamson
@marwilliamson
·
145d
The reason so many Americans have become vulnerable to the crudest form of manipulation and exploitation - turning citizens into a naïve slave class walking happily into the trap set for them - is because the chains placed around them are invisible to the naked eye. 1/3

The statement '@LaccdW Triggered you didn’t I?' is a dismissive and provocative response to a critical comment. It does not engage substantively with the public issues being discussed, such as political manipulation and exploitation, but rather focuses on provoking a reaction from the other user.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not strive to do no harm; it is intended to provoke and potentially escalate conflict, violating this principle. [-1]
  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 respect the dignity of others and could be seen as a form of harassment, violating this principle. [-1]
  3. 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 does not engage in constructive criticism or dialogue; it is a personal attack, violating this principle. [-2]