Marianne Williamson

Rank 16 of 47
|
Score 69
5/29/2025, 9:40:40 PM
X
In reply to:
Corey A. DeAngelis, school choice evangelist
@DeAngelisCorey
·
50d
@marwilliamson Discuss whatever you want. Don't force taxpayers to fund racist indoctrination.
Marianne Williamson
@marwilliamson
·
50d
@DeAngelisCorey So you think it’s basically OK for the government to tell people what they can and cannot discuss, and you think you’re doing the work of ethical journalism by “exposing” a fellow citizen for saying she’s going to talk about whatever she wants to talk about because this is a free
Corey A. DeAngelis, school choice evangelist
@DeAngelisCorey
·
50d
BREAKING: Undercover journalists caught an administrator at UNC bragging about pushing DEI despite it being banned.

She says staff just "FINESSE" the language.

They do "work that is COVERT."

The university provost RAN AWAY when confronted.

I have the video.
Buckle up 👇🧵

The statement by @DeAngelisCorey and the subsequent replies constitute public discourse as they engage in a debate about the use of taxpayer money, government policies, and issues related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in education. The statement by @DeAngelisCorey criticizes the use of taxpayer money for DEI initiatives, while the reply challenges this view by pointing out perceived inconsistencies in the concern over taxpayer money. The tone is confrontational and aims to highlight perceived hypocrisy.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly cause harm but uses a confrontational tone that could escalate tensions.
  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 could be seen as dismissive of the original poster's concerns.
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not promote understanding or empathy, as it focuses on criticizing the perceived hypocrisy of the original poster. [-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 engages in a form of personal attack by implying hypocrisy, rather than addressing the argument constructively. [-1]
  5. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement exercises free speech but does so in a manner that may not be considered responsible or constructive.