Michael Schellenberger

Rank 41 of 47
|
Score -113
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.
3/1/2025, 5:32:11 PM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
331d
Here’s how people on the street describe the rampant violence
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 criticizes a public figure, using a derogatory term and suggesting a lack of responsibility. It engages in public discourse by addressing governance and public safety issues.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement uses derogatory language, which could be seen as harmful and disrespectful, violating the principle of doing no harm. [-2]
  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 respect the dignity of the individual it criticizes, potentially violating privacy and dignity. [-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 engages in a personal attack rather than constructive criticism, violating the principle of engaging in constructive dialogue. [-2]