In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
8h
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
23h
The statement engages in public discourse by discussing the concept of natural rights and its interpretation in American political thought. It references a public figure's change in stance, which is relevant to civic dialogue. The tone is critical of certain media and political groups, suggesting they misrepresent historical and ideological foundations. The statement implies a division between political ideologies, attributing negative motives to one side.
- The statement could be seen as contributing to polarization by attributing misinformation to a political group, potentially causing harm. [-1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- It does not engage in direct harassment but implies negative motives to a group, which could be seen as disrespectful. [-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, as it frames the issue in a divisive manner. [-1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement does not engage in constructive dialogue, as it attributes ignorance and negative motives to 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.