Michael Schellenberger

Rank 41 of 47
|
Score -113
Paul Daniel
@iamcomcy
·
331d
@shellenberger So let me get this straight: if someone breaks into my home, my obligation is to LEAVE IMMEDIATELY, allowing this person to clean out my home.

OK. New business idea: T-shirt "I'm here to rob your home. LEAVE!" Moving vans "Robbers R Us" and all the warehouses located just out of…
3/1/2025, 5:35:25 PM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
331d
Meanwhile, our man-child governor is quiet quitting to start a podcast
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.
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 suggests that the legislature's actions are intentionally promoting crime, which is a provocative claim. It appears to be a critique of legislative policies and their perceived consequences on crime rates.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement could be seen as harmful by implying malicious intent behind legislative actions, which may not be substantiated. [-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 lawmakers by attributing negative intentions without evidence. [-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 sarcasm and hyperbole, which may hinder productive dialogue. [-2]