Jill Stien

Rank 38 of 47
|
Score -97

The statement is a critical commentary on the United States' involvement in international affairs, specifically regarding its support for Israel. It addresses public issues related to foreign policy, military aid, and international relations, thus constituting public discourse. The tone is accusatory and critical, suggesting a strong disapproval of U.S. actions and policies.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement uses strong language that could be seen as harmful or inflammatory, potentially escalating tensions rather than fostering constructive dialogue. This violates the principle of striving to do no harm with words. [-2]
  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 the accusatory tone could be seen as disrespectful to those who support U.S. policies, potentially undermining their dignity. [-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 focuses on criticism without offering a path to understanding or resolution. [-2]
  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 presents a one-sided view without acknowledging opposing perspectives or inviting discussion. [-2]
  5. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    The statement uses its platform to critique U.S. foreign policy, which could be seen as an attempt to influence public opinion and policy for societal betterment, though the approach is confrontational. [+1]
  6. 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 with integrity, given its accusatory and potentially inflammatory nature. [-1]