Jill Stien

The statement critiques perceived hypocrisy in political responses to free speech and safety concerns, highlighting a specific case involving an Ivy League student. It suggests a double standard in how conservatives address these issues.

1. Principle 1:

   I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.

   The statement aims to highlight inconsistencies in political stances, which can contribute to public understanding, but it may also provoke defensiveness. [+1]
2. Principle 2:

   I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.

   It respects privacy by not naming the student but could be seen as critical of a political group, potentially leading to divisive discourse. [-1]
3. Principle 3:

   I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.

   The statement attempts to promote understanding of political inconsistencies, though it may not foster empathy or compassion.
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.

   It engages in criticism of a political stance, which can be constructive, but risks being perceived as a personal attack on a group.