In reply to:
Steve Faktor
@ideafaktory
·
204d
Marianne Williamson
@marwilliamson
·
204d
The statement engages in a public discourse by responding to a conversation about public figures and their influence on societal progress. It suggests a critical view of one of the figures, implying potential harm rather than benefit.
- The statement implies harm by suggesting one of the figures wields a 'sword of destruction,' which could be seen as a violation of striving to do 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 metaphor of a 'sword of destruction' could be interpreted as disrespectful. [-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 promote understanding, empathy, or compassion, as it focuses on a negative portrayal. [-1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement does not engage in constructive criticism or dialogue, as it uses a metaphor that 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.