Michael Schellenberger

Rank 42 of 47
|
Score -120
2/22/2025, 2:11:18 AM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
329d
The rhetoric employed by the media, USAID's activist labor union, and the taxpayer-funded NGO industrial complex was grossly irresponsible and constituted emotional blackmail.

At various moments, the judge scolds the plaintiffs for being misleading:

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi…
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 critiques the plaintiffs' claims in a legal case involving USAID, suggesting that some claims were exaggerated or false. It highlights the court's findings that the alleged harms were not as severe as claimed.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement aims to clarify misinformation, aligning with the principle of doing no harm by correcting false claims. [+1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    It respects privacy and dignity by focusing on the claims rather than personal attacks on individuals involved. [+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 engages in constructive criticism by addressing the substance of the claims rather than attacking the plaintiffs personally. [+1]