Michael Schellenberger

Rank 41 of 47
|
Score -109
9/9/2025, 10:01:47 PM
X
In reply to:
Alpharabius
@Alpharabius870
·
137d
@tolohan Can you think of a better way to defend democracy than to limit the choices of voters? After all, you don't want them to vote for the "wrong" people, do you? /s
Tom Olohan
@tolohan
·
137d
Twitter Files Journalist Michael Shellenberger says that NGOs "made the case" to EU governments to block candidates, including front-runners, from running in elections.

The statement is a sarcastic response to a discussion about democracy and voter choice, referencing a claim about NGOs influencing EU elections. The use of sarcasm suggests a critique of limiting voter choice as a means to protect democracy.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The sarcastic tone may undermine constructive dialogue, potentially causing misunderstanding or offense. [-1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The sarcasm does not promote understanding or empathy, as it may alienate those with differing views. [-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, as it uses sarcasm rather than direct argumentation. [-1]