Reposted by Jake Tapper 🦅
The Washington Post
@washingtonpost
·
18h
The statement criticizes the U.S. response to allies sending troops to Greenland, suggesting it harms American interests and benefits adversaries. It engages in public discourse by addressing international relations and U.S. foreign policy.
- The statement does not use harmful language but criticizes a policy decision, aligning with the principle of doing no harm. [+1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement aims to promote understanding by highlighting potential negative consequences of the policy, aligning with promoting understanding and empathy. [+1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement engages in constructive criticism of a policy decision without personal attacks, aligning with the principle of constructive dialogue. [+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.
- The statement uses influence to advocate for what the author believes is better for society, aligning with using influence for societal betterment. [+1]Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
- The statement upholds free speech and uses the platform responsibly to discuss a public issue, aligning with responsible use of free speech. [+1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.