In reply to:
Dom Quilici
@DQuilici1
·
108d
The statement by @DQuilici1 constitutes public discourse as it engages in a debate about the state of democracy and constitutional rights, which are significant public issues. The tone is assertive, aiming to refute a previous claim by asserting the truth of certain facts.
- The statement does not directly cause harm but could be seen as dismissive, which might indirectly contribute to a polarized discourse. However, it does not explicitly violate the principle.Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement does not promote understanding, empathy, or compassion as it asserts facts without providing evidence or engaging in a deeper dialogue. [-1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement engages in a form of dialogue but lacks constructive criticism. It dismisses the opposing view without providing evidence or reasoning, which could be seen as a minor violation of this principle. [-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 does not acknowledge or correct any mistakes, nor does it provide room for such acknowledgment, which is neutral in this context.Principle 5:I will acknowledge and correct my mistakes.
- The statement upholds free speech but does not use the platform to substantively contribute to the discourse, as it lacks evidence or reasoning to support its claims.Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.