Michael Schellenberger

Rank 42 of 47
|
Score -109
9/10/2025, 11:10:52 AM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
135d
Europeans should know that this woman @vonderleyen is a menace to their freedom and security. The US cannot remain in NATO if Ursula, Macron, and Merz keep banning candidates and censoring speech. @realDonaldTrump and @JDVance must remain steadfast against EU totalitarians.
Disclose.tv
@disclosetv
·
135d
JUST IN - Ursula von der Leyen: "we are on the brink, if not even at the start, of another global health crisis," EU announces a new global health resilience initiative to combat "disinformation."
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
135d
If you can’t freely express your opinions and vote for the candidate of your choice, you’re not a democracy. If you’re not a democracy, you can’t be in NATO. @realDonaldTrump @Keir_Starmer @EmmanuelMacron @_FriedrichMerz

The statement engages in public discourse by discussing international regulations, censorship, and online anonymity, which are significant public issues. It presents a critical view of EU regulations and their impact on freedom and democracy.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement suggests potential harm by implying that regulations could lead to censorship and loss of freedom, which may incite fear or concern. [-1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    It criticizes public figures and policies, which could be seen as disrespectful, but it does not engage in direct harassment or hate speech.
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement lacks empathy and understanding, focusing on criticism rather than constructive dialogue. [-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 engages in criticism but does not offer constructive dialogue or solutions, focusing instead on personal attacks against public figures. [-1]