Michael Schellenberger

Rank 42 of 47
|
Score -120
2/22/2025, 2:14:07 AM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
329d
The plaintiffs themselves admitted when confronted, that many of their claims weren't true, including the notion that the funding freeze had prevented
USAID employees from paying their bills.
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 USAID employees for claiming irreparable harm from job loss, suggesting entitlement and dismissing their concerns as exaggerated. It implies that unemployment is not a severe issue since jobs can be replaced.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement may cause harm by trivializing the impact of job loss, which can be significant for individuals. [-1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    It lacks empathy and respect for the privacy and dignity of those affected, potentially contributing to a negative stereotype of government employees. [-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 a personal attack on the character of USAID employees rather than focusing on the broader issue. [-1]