Michael Schellenberger

Rank 40 of 47
|
Score -90
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
149d
Nothing could have been done to stop the catastrophic L.A. fires that killed 24, incinerated 12k homes, and cost $250B, say the media. Nonsense, says an LA firefighter. The failure by Newsom & Bass to mobilize firefighters before the fires began led to an avoidable catastrophe.
6/9/2025, 2:52:32 AM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
3d
@KarenBassLA They're not going to be satisfied until the rest of LA burns down.
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
147d
They defunded the fire department, drained the reservoir, and cut the budget for fire prevention. Yes, incompetence. Yes, ideology. But the underlying reason they let LA burn is because, deep down, they hate civilization. Me with @JillianMichaels
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
3d
California has half the population as Germany and a bigger economy. We pay the highest taxes by far. And yet, not only does LA have nearly half the police per capita as Chicago, Mayor @KarenBassLA wants to lay-off 400 police officers.
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
3d
Everybody in L.A. knows there aren't enough police officers. It has little more than half as many per capita as Chicago. And yet @GavinNewsom @MayorOfLA @KamalaHarris and *every single* Democratic governor opposed calling out the National Guard.
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
3d
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_

The statement is a critique of California's leadership, suggesting they are ideologically driven and hypocritical. It implies that leaders prioritize their own safety while neglecting broader societal needs, particularly in law enforcement and public safety.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement uses strong language that could be seen as harmful, suggesting leaders 'hate civilization.' This could incite division rather than constructive dialogue. [-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 individuals it criticizes, using accusatory and inflammatory language. [-2]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement lacks empathy and understanding, focusing on blame rather than solutions. [-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 rather than constructive criticism, targeting individuals and groups with broad generalizations. [-2]