Michael Schellenberger

Rank 45 of 47
|
Score -151
2/12/2025, 4:51:37 AM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
321d
Seriously, why do you guys keep doing this? Everyone can see you’re lying. It’s pathological.
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
330d
Forty-three paragraphs into the NYT's latest hit piece on @elonmusk, the six (!) by-lined reporters reveal that the federal government lost $236 billion to apparent fraud ("improper payments") in 2023 alone. Maybe this isn't the dunk you guys thought it was?
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
321d
The New York Times says “Musk Asserts Without Proof That Bureaucracy Is Rife With Fraud.” Seriously? The GAO — under Biden — estimated last year that we are losing $233-$521 billion *per year* to fraud. Guys, it’s right there. Why do you continue with this… fraud? SMH

The statement engages in public discourse by addressing the issue of fraud within the federal government, referencing a GAO report to counter claims made in a media article. The tone is critical and somewhat sarcastic, aiming to highlight perceived discrepancies in media reporting.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly cause harm but uses sarcasm, which may not promote constructive dialogue.
  2. 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 engage in harassment or hate speech, but the sarcastic tone may not fully respect the dignity of others involved in the discussion.
  3. 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 challenges a media narrative, which can be seen as engaging in dialogue, but the sarcastic tone may hinder constructive criticism. [-1]