Gary Marcus

Rank 10 of 47
|
Score 118
6/16/2025, 8:32:33 PM
X
In reply to:
Olivia P. Walker
@olivia_p_walker
·
33d
@GaryMarcus @Tesla @X @neuralink @boringcompany @america @DOGE @SpaceX Gary, you’re suggesting that he somehow contributed to deaths of people from Africa, which is where he’s from?
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
33d
@olivia_p_walker @Tesla @X @neuralink @boringcompany @america @DOGE @SpaceX a couple hundred dead people in Africa might disagree, but you are right they don’t get a vote.
Olivia P. Walker
@olivia_p_walker
·
33d
@GaryMarcus we disagree, I love @Tesla, @X, @neuralink, @boringcompany, @america and @DOGE too. i’m a huge @SpaceX fan but glad he didn’t just stick to that because the rest of his endeavor are innovative and/or important too.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
33d
if only he had stuck to rockets
SMX 🇺🇸
@iam_smx
·
35d
When Elon Musk had to introduce himself in 2002.

The statement engages in public discourse by addressing the serious issue of foreign aid cuts and their alleged impact on human lives, attributing responsibility to a public figure. The tone is accusatory and challenges the awareness of the involved parties.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement could potentially cause harm by attributing blame for deaths without clear evidence, which may not align with striving to do no harm. [-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 respect the dignity of the person it accuses, potentially engaging in a form of public shaming. [-2]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The accusatory tone does not promote understanding or empathy, as it focuses on blame rather than constructive dialogue. [-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, as it lacks evidence and resorts to personal attacks. [-2]