Marianne Williamson

Rank 16 of 47
|
Score 55
1/11/2026, 1:30:26 AM
X
In reply to:
El Rucio
@ElRucioDos
·
30d
@marwilliamson But the gestapo were legitimate law enforcement, weren’t they?
Marianne Williamson
@marwilliamson
·
30d
These are gestapo tactics. This is not legitimate law-enforcement.
FactPost
@factpostnews
·
32d
Pastor: I saw ICE agents circling a young woman who appeared to be Hispanic. I said to this ICE agent, 'Take me, stop harassing her.' The agent got in my face, pointed a gun at me, and said, 'Are you afraid now?' To which I said, 'I am not afraid.' The next thing I knew, they

The statement engages in public discourse by discussing the actions of law enforcement and comparing them to historical entities, which is a significant societal issue. The original comment by @marwilliamson uses a strong metaphor to criticize ICE's actions, suggesting they are oppressive. @ElRucioDos's response questions the legitimacy of the Gestapo, which could be seen as minimizing the historical atrocities committed by them. The final reply 'No' dismisses this comparison, potentially aiming to refocus the conversation.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The original statement by @marwilliamson aims to highlight perceived injustices, aligning with the principle of doing no harm by advocating against oppressive actions. [+1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    @ElRucioDos's comment could be seen as disrespectful to the victims of the Gestapo, potentially violating the principle of respecting dignity. [-1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The conversation attempts to promote understanding of law enforcement actions, though the comparison to the Gestapo may hinder empathy and compassion.
  4. 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 dialogue involves disagreement, but the use of historical comparisons may detract from constructive criticism. [-1]