Here's the basic principles which I have deciphered which entreaty the definitive procedure for not being a piece of shit.
First, remember that language has repercussions and like it or not words create emotional impressions in people's minds which will affect their opinion of whether they approve of you, which is simply a fact of nature which cannot be avoided if one wishes to seek the approval of their peers, considering human beings are naturally group animals. The extent to which one can bend these rules depends on the person that you're with and the level of your astuteness in ability to decipher what is and is not acceptable will dictate your level of approval in other's eyes.
Second, I might as well add respect other people's boundaries, since that wasn't mentioned in any form in the holy and 100% factually correct bible, which contained the 10 commandments. This plays into Kant's categorical imperative, which was simply about treating others as ends in themselves, which is a mutual interaction - aka you can't just violate someone else's boundaries and then say they need to respect your boundaries to disrespect their boundaries.
The second statement includes not acting like oppressed people deserve to be oppressed, and equivocating some reason why they actually deserve to be. This is where people falter, because there's an error in people's reasoning that if they make other people's lives miserable indirectly (ie. by allowing rich people to hoard all the wealth while others suffer and starve then that's somehow acceptable) still constitutes violating other people's boundaries. For example, if there was enough air for 2 people, and you inhaled all the air from the other person, you'd be violating that person's boundaries just as raping them.
Since there is actually no book or set of commandments which is an authoritative source of morality, which people have tried to make in the past to justify their desire to live peacefully with other humans, people need to examine what it actually is which can lead to humans living peacefully together, if that is what they desire. Since there actually is no set code, and people are just fumbling around desperately trying to make one, there is discord among humans. Perhaps the reason people think religious texts are authoritative is because they give people some semblance of rules which tell them how to conduct themselves, or attempt to bring about societal peace, and it seems to the religious person that since no mere human could ever bring about that peace themselves, it must be up to a source beyond human, of which there is none in this vast stary cosmos in which we are lost in the struggle against the will of others, and there are no rules.
It certainly would be nice if people took heed of my humble opinion, for I feel it would be useful to bring about world peace. But world peace is a laughable notion, because everyone except the naive believe it can be achieved, and all the brutes, ignorant deniers, and upholders of oppression will continue to cause others dismay, and those in dismay will continue to naively hope that love and logic could ever overcome willful stupidity.