In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
139d
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
139d
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
139d
The statement and images engage in public discourse by discussing the role of the ACLU and progressives in the debate over mandatory psychiatric care for the mentally ill, particularly in the context of public safety and individual rights. The tone is critical of the ACLU and progressives, suggesting they have contributed to a crisis by opposing mandatory care. The intent is to argue for policy changes that mandate care for the dangerously psychotic.
- The statement aims to address a public safety issue, but the critical tone may not fully align with striving to do no harm. [-1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement critiques organizations and ideologies, which could be seen as not fully respecting the dignity of those involved. [-1]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 promote understanding or empathy towards the ACLU or progressives, focusing instead on criticism. [-1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement engages in criticism but does not appear to engage in constructive dialogue with those it disagrees with. [-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.