In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
18d
The statement discusses a significant international political action involving the U.S. and Brazil, focusing on a travel ban imposed on Brazilian Supreme Court Justices. It implies a defense of free speech and democracy, suggesting that the justices are persecuting a former president. The tone is assertive and presents a specific viewpoint on the situation.
- The statement could potentially harm by framing the actions of the Brazilian judiciary as persecution without providing evidence, which might escalate tensions. [-1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement does not promote understanding or empathy, as it presents a one-sided view without exploring the complexities of the situation. [-1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement lacks constructive dialogue and could be seen as a personal attack on the Brazilian justices, labeling their actions as persecution. [-1]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 uses its platform to influence public opinion on a sensitive international issue, but it does so in a way that may not contribute positively to societal betterment. [-1]Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.