Reposted by Dr. Jill Stein🌻
Ursula von der Leyen
@vonderleyen
·
5d
The statement critiques Ursula von der Leyen's selective application of international law, highlighting perceived inconsistencies in her stance on territorial integrity across different geopolitical contexts. The tone is critical and aims to point out a perceived hypocrisy or double standard in international policy enforcement.
- The statement does not directly harm but uses a critical tone that could be seen as undermining the credibility of a public figure. [-1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement does not engage in cyberbullying or hate speech but could be seen as disrespectful by implying hypocrisy.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 criticism rather than constructive dialogue. [-1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement engages in criticism but does not offer constructive dialogue or solutions, focusing instead on pointing out perceived inconsistencies. [-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 highlight perceived issues in international policy, which could contribute to public awareness and debate. [+1]Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
- The statement exercises free speech to critique a public figure's stance on international law, which is a responsible use of the platform. [+1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.