The statement and conversation engage in public discourse by discussing the political radicalization of young women and men, challenging prevailing narratives about online radicalization. The conversation is data-driven, referencing a graph showing ideological shifts over time.
Principle 1:
I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.The statement does not directly harm but could be seen as framing political shifts negatively, which might indirectly cause harm by stigmatizing ideological changes.
[-1]Principle 3:
I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.The conversation could promote understanding by highlighting data, but it risks lacking empathy by framing ideological shifts as radicalization.
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 statement engages in dialogue but may lack constructive criticism by not fully exploring the reasons behind the shifts.
[-1]