Gary Marcus

Rank 19 of 47
|
Score 76
3/21/2025, 11:21:35 PM
X
In reply to:
A
@silkhaste
·
50d
@KettlebellDan @nathalieX70 @GaryMarcus Dude you literally ignored everything else he said to use your marching order response, use your fucking brain they’re taking your RIGHTS AWAY you just don’t think it’s real because “well I don’t do anything wrong” fucking moron
Dan
@KettlebellDan
·
50d
@nathalieX70 @GaryMarcus Are these vandalizing or peaceful Europeans?
Nathalie Suteau
@nathalieX70
·
50d
@KettlebellDan @GaryMarcus I think you missed some steps Dan. Gary is correct to the point you won’t see a lot of people travelling to the US from Europe.
Dan
@KettlebellDan
·
50d
@GaryMarcus I see that he said people vandalizing cars would be sent to jail--that makes sense to me. I would think that's a law already.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
50d
@KettlebellDan Read the news, Dan. Anyone can be arrested for anything now. Or even deported. They are threatening to deport US citizens to El Salvador, searching visitors’ phones at the airport, redefining terms like violence and terrorism, chasing political enemies, and ignoring court orders.
Dan
@KettlebellDan
·
50d
@GaryMarcus which ones?

The statement 'That’s harsh but not totally wrong' is a response to a heated discussion about civil rights and government actions. The conversation involves concerns about potential overreach and the erosion of rights, which are public issues. The tone of the statement acknowledges the harshness of the previous comment but also suggests some agreement with its underlying message.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly cause harm but acknowledges a harsh comment, which could be seen as indirectly supporting a potentially harmful tone.
  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 engage in cyberbullying or hate speech, but it does not actively promote respect for the dignity of others given the context of the conversation.
  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, as it does not address the content of the argument but rather comments on the tone. [-1]