Michael Schellenberger

Rank 46 of 47
|
Score -202
Zohran Kwame Mamdani
@ZohranKMamdani
·
1846d
In 2017, NYC ordered a review of public works constituting "symbols of hate" for potential removal.

But a statue of Columbus remains in Astoria, in defiance of the values of humanity, empathy & justice that we stand for.

It has to go. Sign the petition: https://actionnetwork.org/petiti…
6/27/2025, 1:43:11 PM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
10d
The election of a charismatic democratic socialist as the Democratic Party’s mayoral candidate yesterday stunned New York's political establishment and appears to signal the most radical shift in city politics in a generation. With no executive experience, limited name
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
10d
New York's socialist mayoral frontrunner says his policies will lower housing and food prices, and reduce crime and disorder. They won't. They'll increase them. The reason he won is because he pandered to young voters afflicted by envy, entitlement, and willful ignorance.

The statement 'Extreme entitlement' is a critical response to a discussion about a socialist mayoral candidate's election in New York. It reflects a dismissive tone towards the candidate and their supporters, suggesting they possess an unwarranted sense of entitlement. This response is part of a broader debate on political ideologies and electoral outcomes.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not promote understanding or empathy, as it dismisses the motivations of voters and the candidate without constructive engagement. [-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 could be seen as disrespectful, as it labels a group of people negatively without substantive justification. [-1]
  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 does not engage in constructive criticism or dialogue, instead opting for a derogatory label. [-1]