Michael Schellenberger

Rank 45 of 47
|
Score -120
3/7/2025, 4:46:48 PM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
1d
To hide the corruption, LA officials have made it impossible to track $2.4 billion spending on homelessness. The city is paying people to house and care for the homeless without checking to see if it's working. And, obviously, it's not working. That makes the whole thing a scam.
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
1d
The solution to homelessness is "Housing First," says Gavin Newsom. It isn't. It kills mentally ill drug addicts who overdose and die from permissive negligence. And now, a new audit shows how L.A.'s homeless housing scheme is a grift stealing taxpayer money.

The statement is a critical commentary on the alleged mismanagement and corruption in Los Angeles' homelessness spending. It accuses officials of breaking the law and misusing public funds, linking these actions to the harm of homeless individuals. The tone is accusatory and aims to hold public officials accountable.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement aims to expose wrongdoing, which could be seen as striving to do no harm by advocating for accountability. However, the language is harsh and could be seen as harmful to the reputations of those accused without due process. [-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 respect the privacy and dignity of the officials mentioned, as it publicly accuses them of serious misconduct without providing evidence in the statement itself. [-2]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not promote understanding, empathy, or compassion, as it uses strong language and accusations rather than fostering a constructive dialogue. [-2]
  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 personal attacks by directly naming and blaming specific public figures, which does not align with constructive criticism and dialogue. [-2]