Marianne Williamson

Rank 9 of 47
|
Score 147
4/15/2025, 7:16:15 PM
X
In reply to:
ye_bars
@xgodbars
·
23d
@marwilliamson @BeverlyBehlmann Not really. You are 100% brainwashed by MSM and all you do is parrot hate because of it

I don’t know any other spiritual teachers that have allowed themselves to sink this low

You really need to turn your tv off and do better
Marianne Williamson
@marwilliamson
·
23d
@BeverlyBehlmann Sitting. I can still think.
BionicBev
@BeverlyBehlmann
·
23d
@marwilliamson Marianne… it’s time for you to go sit down somewhere.
Marianne Williamson
@marwilliamson
·
23d
In keeping with Trump's DEI directives, the U.S. Naval Academy took all books about Blacks, Jews, or gays off the bookshelves (including "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings").

But they kept MEIN KAMPF.

The statement engages in a public discourse about the influence of media and spiritual teachings, responding to a conversation about political and social issues. The tone is defensive and dismissive, suggesting that disagreement is due to denial of facts. It does not promote constructive dialogue or understanding.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not strive to do no harm, as it dismisses opposing views without engaging constructively, potentially escalating conflict. [-1]
  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 direct harassment or hate speech, but it dismisses others' views in a way that could be seen as disrespectful. [-1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not promote understanding, empathy, or compassion, as it dismisses disagreement without attempting to understand the opposing perspective. [-1]
  4. 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 dismisses disagreement as denial of facts, which could be seen as a personal attack. [-1]