Michael Schellenberger

Rank 41 of 47
|
Score -113
3/1/2025, 5:26:59 PM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
331d
The increase in California’s violent crime rate to 31% higher than the US as a whole generated so much negative publicity that state lawmakers hope to pass legislation that would criminalize self-defense by homeowners during a home invasion. Gavin Newsom would likely to sign it.
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
334d
You cut fire prevention; LA burned. You spent $24 billion on homelessness; it rose 40%. You reduced penalties for violent crime; it's 31% higher in California than in the US as a whole. And instead of taking responsibility, you're trying to become an influencer. It's pathetic.

The statement and images engage in public discourse by discussing legislative changes related to self-defense laws in California, which is a public issue. The tone suggests skepticism and concern about the implications of the bill, implying it could criminalize self-defense. The statement aims to inform and possibly alarm the public about potential changes in legal rights.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement raises concerns about public safety and legal rights, which could be seen as striving to do no harm by informing the public. [+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 does not engage in cyberbullying or harassment but criticizes public figures and policies, which is within the bounds of public discourse. [+1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement could promote understanding by highlighting potential legal changes, but the tone may not foster empathy or compassion.
  4. 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 criticism of public figures and policies, which is constructive if based on facts, but the tone is somewhat accusatory. [-1]