Michael Schellenberger

Rank 41 of 47
|
Score -109
2/28/2025, 7:44:20 PM
X
In reply to:
Mark Scott
@onedarwinian
·
329d
@shellenberger @JDVance That wasn't diplomacy, it was the mugging of a brave leader fighting for his country. It is Trump’s appeasement and embrace of an imperialist and genocidal Russia that risks nuclear war. Your connection to this administration has made you an accomplice in this shameful episode…
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
329d
@onedarwinian @JDVance Shame on you for dismissing diplomacy and risking nuclear war.
Mark Scott
@onedarwinian
·
329d
@shellenberger @JDVance Michael, what a disgraceful comment. You seem to have lost your morality. Dear God.
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
329d
Zelensky says he wants peace but he just rudely dismissed the Trump administration's diplomacy as pointless. That angered Trump and @JDVance and now Zelensky has fled the White House. This should be the wake-up call that global elites & Europe desperately need.
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
333d
Trump is abandoning Ukraine and threatening global peace, say his critics. He's not. He's negotiating an end to the war, & reducing the US role in Europe, which voters want. Elites are enraged because Trump's new, post-globalist order takes from them the power they badly abused.

The statement is part of a heated exchange about international diplomacy and potential military conflict, which constitutes public discourse. The tone is accusatory and confrontational, using terms like 'Canadian chicken hawk' and 'shame on you,' which are personal attacks rather than constructive criticism.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement uses inflammatory language that could contribute to harm rather than promote understanding. [-2]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    It does not respect the dignity of others, engaging in personal attacks. [-2]
  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 lacks constructive criticism and instead uses ad hominem arguments. [-2]