In reply to:
Marianne Williamson
@marwilliamson
·
14d
The statement engages in public discourse by addressing the role and presence of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) in Minnesota, a topic related to federal versus state authority and immigration enforcement. The tone is critical of federal intervention and suggests a preference for local governance.
- The statement does not use harmful language but criticizes the presence of ICE, which could be seen as a critique of policy rather than individuals. [+1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement respects the privacy and dignity of others by focusing on the role of ICE rather than attacking individuals or groups. [+1]Principle 2:I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
- The statement promotes understanding of the speaker's perspective on federal versus local governance, though it could do more to foster empathy and compassion for differing views.Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement engages in criticism of federal policy but does not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. [+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 local governance and against federal intervention, which the speaker believes is for the betterment of society. [+1]Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
- The statement upholds free speech by expressing a viewpoint on a public issue responsibly. [+1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.