In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
331d
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
332d
The statement criticizes a political figure's decision on a contentious issue, using charged language that may polarize rather than promote understanding. It frames the decision as a failure of 'sanity,' which could be seen as dismissive of differing perspectives.
- The statement uses language that could be considered harmful or dismissive, potentially contributing to division rather than constructive dialogue. [-1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement does not respect the dignity of those it discusses, particularly transgender individuals, by framing the issue in a way that could be seen as derogatory. [-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 or empathy, as it uses charged language that may alienate those with differing views. [-1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement does not engage in constructive criticism, as it uses ad hominem language rather than focusing on policy specifics. [-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.