Reposted by Michael Shellenberger
The statement argues that US entry measures against HateAid leaders are legitimate, presenting reasons related to the organization's funding and political agenda. The tone is assertive and critical, focusing on the legitimacy of governmental actions against a specific NGO.
- The statement does not directly promote harm but could contribute to a negative perception of the NGO.Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement challenges the privacy and dignity of the NGO by labeling it as a quasi-state actor, which may not respect its autonomy. [-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 lacks empathy, focusing instead on justifying exclusionary measures. [-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.