Michael Schellenberger

Rank 42 of 47
|
Score -120
9/12/2025, 9:44:07 PM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
128d
"While we have seen no evidence that Kirk’s shooter is a student, there’s no doubt that the 50% increase in this level of support for political violence among college students over the last 5 years has broad implications for the future of the country."

https://www.thefire.org/news/stu…
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
128d
The share of college students who say "Using violence to stop a campus speech" is acceptable rose from under 20% to 34% btwn 2020-2025. Students "furthest to the left have been the most accepting of violence for as long as we’ve asked the question." Time to de-radicalize schools

The statement and conversation involve public discourse as they address societal issues related to political violence, student behavior, and implications for the future. The statement highlights concerns about increasing acceptance of violence among students and links it to a specific incident involving a suspect in a murder case. The tone is serious and implies a need for action to address radicalization in educational institutions.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement raises awareness about a societal issue, potentially aiming to prevent harm by addressing the rise in acceptance of violence. [+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 may violate privacy and dignity by associating an individual with hate without substantial evidence, potentially leading to cyberbullying or harassment. [-2]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not promote understanding or empathy, as it focuses on negative aspects without offering constructive solutions. [-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 a broader dialogue about societal issues but risks personal attacks by linking an individual to broader trends without clear evidence.