Michael Schellenberger

Rank 40 of 47

Score -89

-8

Trudeau spread disinformation to persecute his critics. He froze their bank accounts. He demanded censorship. We have to talk about the malignant narcissism of Justin Trudeau:

Michael Shellenberger

@shellenberger

722d

The Malignant Narcissism Of Justin Trudeau

On the psychopathology of a man who: spreads disinformation while demanding censorship; freezes the bank accounts of people who criticize him; and smears ordinary Canadians as Nazis

by @StephenMoore902

Last week, Canadian House of…

1/6/2025, 4:28:48 PM

In reply to:

Michael Shellenberger

@shellenberger

254d

Justin Trudeau has resigned. He framed himself as an honest, caring, and compassionate leader. He was not. He falsely smeared his critics as Nazis. He justified freezing bank accounts using faked intelligence. And he spread disinformation while demanding censorship. Let's dig in:

The statement is a critical commentary on Justin Trudeau, accusing him of spreading disinformation, freezing bank accounts, and demanding censorship. It uses strong language, such as 'malignant narcissism,' which can be seen as inflammatory.

Principle 1:
I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
The statement uses harsh language and accusations, which could be harmful and inflammatory, potentially violating the principle of doing no harm. [-2]
Principle 2:
I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
The statement accuses Trudeau of serious actions without providing evidence, which could be seen as disrespectful and potentially defamatory. [-2]
Principle 3:
I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
The language used does not promote understanding or empathy, as it is accusatory and lacks constructive dialogue. [-2]
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 does not engage in constructive criticism and instead uses personal attacks, violating the principle of engaging in constructive dialogue. [-2]