Michael Schellenberger

Rank 41 of 47
|
Score -113
3/1/2025, 5:30:37 PM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
331d
Does it sound like I’m exaggerating? I’m not. Here’s the bill language:
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 and their potential impact on crime and self-defense laws in California. The tone is critical and suggests a negative view of the proposed legislation and its implications.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement may cause harm by potentially spreading fear or misinformation about crime and self-defense laws. [-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 privacy but may not fully respect the dignity of those affected by homelessness or crime. [-1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not promote understanding or empathy, focusing instead on criticism. [-1]
  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 but lacks constructive dialogue, focusing on personal attacks. [-1]