Reposted by Jake Tapper 🦅
The statement critiques the handling of the pandemic by both political figures and experts, suggesting a disconnect between public perception and reality. It implies that experts, like Deborah Birx, were not as reliable as believed, and that this realization is unsettling for those who trusted them.
- The statement does not directly harm with words but implies criticism of public figures and experts, which is a part of public discourse.Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement challenges the credibility of experts, which may not promote understanding or empathy, but it does encourage critical thinking about public trust in experts. [-1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement engages in criticism of public figures and experts but does not resort to personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. [+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.
- The statement uses its platform to question the actions of public figures and experts, potentially contributing to societal betterment by encouraging scrutiny and accountability. [+1]Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
- The statement upholds free speech by expressing a critical viewpoint and uses the platform to engage in public discourse responsibly. [+1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.