Reposted by Jake Tapper 🦅
The statement involves a public figure discussing a controversial incident involving law enforcement, which constitutes public discourse. The tone is defensive, aiming to justify the actions of law enforcement and the Trump administration's response.
- The statement could be seen as potentially harmful by justifying a deadly incident without acknowledging the complexity of the situation. [-1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement respects privacy but may not fully respect the dignity of those affected by the incident. [-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 focuses on defense rather than dialogue. [-1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement does not engage in personal attacks but lacks constructive dialogue or acknowledgment of differing perspectives.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.