Michael Schellenberger

Rank 46 of 47
|
Score -202
Anthony
@AnthonyCabassa_
·
26d
BREAKING 🚨: A second WayMo has just been lit on fire by protestors. No police present. This is a major escalation from just one hour ago. Thousands of protestors in the streets.

Los Angeles, CA
6/9/2025, 12:52:44 AM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
26d
@GavinNewsom Kamala Harris did more than anyone to pass the initiative that decriminalized open air drug dealing and shoplifting. She’s pro-crime because she’s against civilization — at least for poor and working class people, not her and her neighbors.
Kamala Harris
@KamalaHarris
·
26d
My statement on what's unfolding in Los Angeles.
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
26d
L.A.'s lack of police has been one of the biggest crime stories in California for a decade. As such, @GavinNewsom is either lying or even more in a bubble than we knew. And now, naturally, LA's radical-Left mayor and city council want to cut 400 more police officers.
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
26d
There's no shortage of police in L.A., said @GavinNewsom a few hours ago. In fact, L.A. has far fewer police per capita than other big cities. And now, the protesters have overrun the police and blocked the highway. Video: @AnthonyCabassa_
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
26d
It's "inflammatory" to enforce migration laws, say Democrats. But it's not. It's essential for protecting the vulnerable. The reason the Left opposes law enforcement is that they take pleasure at the destruction of civilization, at least so long as it only hurts other people.

The statement is a sarcastic response questioning the adequacy of police presence in Los Angeles, engaging in a broader discussion about public safety and law enforcement policies. It challenges a public figure's stance on a significant civic issue.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement uses sarcasm, which may not promote constructive dialogue, potentially leading to misunderstanding or conflict. [-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 engage in direct harassment or hate speech but could be seen as dismissive.
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The sarcastic tone does not foster understanding or empathy, as it may alienate those with differing views. [-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 does not engage in constructive criticism, as it uses sarcasm rather than reasoned argumentation. [-1]