Reposted by Dr. Jill Stein🌻
The statement engages in public discourse by addressing the serious issue of civilian casualties in conflict zones, drawing historical parallels to emphasize the gravity of the situation. It critiques the dehumanization and justification of violence against a population, which is a significant public concern.
- The statement uses strong language that could be seen as harmful, as it draws a direct comparison to the Holocaust, which may be distressing or offensive to some. This could be seen as a violation of striving to do no harm with words. [-2]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement does not respect the dignity of others by making a broad and harsh comparison to the Holocaust, which could be interpreted as a form of hate speech or inflammatory rhetoric. [-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, empathy, or compassion, as it uses a highly charged historical analogy that may polarize rather than foster dialogue. [-2]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 historical analogy that could be seen as a personal attack on those holding opposing views, rather than fostering constructive dialogue. [-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.