The statement critiques the language used to describe a serious incident involving National Guardsmen, suggesting that calling it an 'accident' is misleading. The tone is skeptical and critical, questioning the intent behind the choice of words.
- The statement challenges the language used, which could be seen as promoting clarity and truth, but it does so in a confrontational manner.Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement does not engage in direct harassment but implies criticism of a public figure's choice of words. [-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 engage in constructive dialogue and instead uses a rhetorical question to challenge the narrative. [-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.