Marianne Williamson

Rank 18 of 47
|
Score 66
8/11/2025, 8:27:11 PM
X
In reply to:
Wise guy 323
@SpeakerWisdom
·
108d
@PaulChr88891118 @marwilliamson @SpurgersJo54867 @DineshDSouza What are you paying?
Paulc
@PaulChr88891118
·
108d
@marwilliamson @SpurgersJo54867 @DineshDSouza I don’t want to pay for the crap coming out of her mouth. No federal funds. Keep talking all you want
Marianne Williamson
@marwilliamson
·
108d
@SpurgersJo54867 @DineshDSouza Nope. Freedom means freedom to say and do whatever you want to say and do as long as you don’t hurt anyone else.
……..
@SpurgersJo54867
·
108d
@marwilliamson @DineshDSouza Such weird times. Should nasacar be punished for letting its fans chant fuck Joe Biden?
Marianne Williamson
@marwilliamson
·
108d
@DineshDSouza Youthink the Trump administration should make speaking out against them “costly for the university?” Our loyalty is not to a president. Our loyalty is to the Constitution, and the Constitution says she can say whatever the hell she wants to say.
Dinesh D'Souza
@DineshDSouza
·
108d
The most interesting image here is the bearded UCLA administrator nodding and applauding. The Trump administration should make sure that gesture alone is extremely costly for the university

The conversation involves a debate about free speech and the use of federal funds, touching on public discourse about constitutional rights and government influence on universities. The initial statement by @DineshDSouza suggests punitive measures against a university for perceived political gestures, which raises issues about freedom of expression and government overreach. @marwilliamson defends free speech, emphasizing constitutional rights. @PaulChr88891118 expresses a desire not to fund speech they disagree with, which is a common public debate about taxpayer money and free speech. @SpeakerWisdom's reply 'Exactly' aligns with @PaulChr88891118's sentiment, reinforcing the stance against funding certain speech.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The conversation involves strong opinions but does not directly incite harm.
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    There is a risk of disrespecting the dignity of those involved by suggesting punitive measures for speech. [-1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The conversation lacks empathy and understanding, focusing more on disagreement. [-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 dialogue includes personal attacks and dismissive language, particularly in the initial statement by @DineshDSouza. [-1]