Michael Schellenberger

Rank 45 of 47
|
Score -120
3/7/2025, 3:21:03 AM
X
In reply to:
Andrew Wittmer
@wittmer0313
·
2d
@shellenberger @Knibbs @WIRED How is it a “scoop?” It was in the executive order creating DOGE that agencies were to provide them with staff.
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
2d
@Knibbs @WIRED How exactly is this a scandal? Are you suggesting that the people auditing the agencies not work for the government? You’d rather they be employees of Tesla and SpaceX?
Kate Knibbs 🏄🏻‍♀️
@Knibbs
·
4d
SCOOP: Some of the DOGE staffers are drawing salaries from the agencies they are cutting. We got some new details: https://www.wired.com/story/doge…

The statement is part of a discussion about government efficiency and the employment of DOGE staffers, which involves public interest and policy. The tone is skeptical, questioning the novelty of the information presented as a 'scoop.'

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm and is part of a critical discussion about government practices. [+1]
  2. 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 questions the validity of calling the information a 'scoop' but does not engage in personal attacks. [+1]