Michael Schellenberger

Rank 42 of 47
|
Score -120
2/22/2025, 2:09:14 AM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
329d
The claims of "emotional harm" were too "'hypothetical' to "support a finding of irreparable harm."
"Upon scrutiny" the alleged injuries "are not irreparable."
USAID had not deprived anyone of necessary security.
And USAID had an orderly plan to return people home.
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
329d
Media outlets uncritically embraced the notion that what Trump had done was unconstitutional. They uncritically accepted claims that USAID people would somehow be put in grave danger. It was all total nonsense, the evidence shows.
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
329d
For weeks, the media said that, by eliminating USAID, Trump had created a "constitutional crisis" and "abandoned" vulnerable people. It was all nonsense. A federal judge today ruled that the "risk posed to USAID employees... is far more minimal than it initially appeared. "

The statement criticizes the media, a labor union, and NGOs for using rhetoric deemed irresponsible and emotionally manipulative. It references a court ruling that found the plaintiffs' claims of harm to be hypothetical and not warranting injunctive relief. The tone is accusatory and dismissive of the plaintiffs' concerns.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement accuses the media and others of emotional blackmail, which could be seen as harmful rhetoric, potentially violating the principle of striving to do no harm. [-1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement respects the privacy of individuals but criticizes organizations, which may not align with respecting dignity if the criticism is unfounded. [-1]
  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 does not engage in constructive dialogue but rather dismisses opposing views, which could be seen as a personal attack on the plaintiffs' credibility. [-1]