Michael Schellenberger

Rank 41 of 47
|
Score -109
9/10/2025, 5:25:42 PM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
134d
Bannana republic
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
135d
There was no coup. There was no coup attempt. There was never any evidence tying Bolsonaro to a coup plot. It's all hearsay and an unsigned document. Total nothingburger from beginning to end. Appalling.
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
135d
This is Pravda-style propaganda not journalism:

"How to Try, and Fail, to Carry Out a Coup... Evidence suggests this is how he tried to do it."

Pathetic and shameful.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/…
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
135d
It was a kangaroo court. Bolsonaro wasn't allowed to properly defend himself. Here's Justice Fux (translated)

"And I say, Mr. President, because it is important, and only for this historical reason, that the guarantee of adversarial proceedings and a full defense, incorporated
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
135d
The media said the case against Brazil's former President Bolsonaro for supposedly plotting a coup was a slam dunk. It wasn't. A Supreme Court Justice appointed by the ruling Left-wing Workers Party just annihilated the prosecution as fraudulent. Incredible to watch.

The statement and images engage in public discourse by discussing the legal proceedings and media coverage surrounding former President Bolsonaro's alleged coup plot. The tone is critical and dismissive, using terms like 'kangaroo court' and 'nothingburger' to undermine the legitimacy of the trial and media reports.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement uses dismissive language and emojis, which could be seen as undermining respectful discourse, potentially causing harm by trivializing serious legal proceedings. [-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 the dismissive tone could be seen as disrespectful to those involved in the legal process.
  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 dismissive and mocking language, which does not foster productive discussion. [-1]