Michael Schellenberger

Rank 44 of 47
|
Score -120
Glenn Greenwald
@ggreenwald
·
116d
The US State Dept just announced its expansion of Magnitsky Act sanctions on Brazil's authoritarian judge Alexandre de Moraes, to now include his wife Viviane: while Lula is in the US to speak at the UN.

The Moraes family just bought a $4 million mansion while under sanctions.
9/22/2025, 6:18:06 PM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
116d
The choice is between free speech & slavery. There’s no middle path. Free speech must come before trade relations and, in the case of the EU, NATO. Demands for *global* censorship by EU, Brazil, and Five Eyes allies are a clear and present danger to Americans. Thus, bravo to this
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent
@SecScottBessent
·
116d
Alexandre de Moraes is responsible for an oppressive campaign of censorship, arbitrary detentions, and politicized prosecutions—including against former President Jair Bolsonaro. Today’s action makes clear that @USTreasury will continue to target individuals who provide material

The statement uses inflammatory language, labeling Alexandre de Moraes as a 'criminal thug,' which is a personal attack rather than a substantive critique of his actions or policies. This detracts from constructive dialogue and does not promote understanding or empathy.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement violates the principle of doing no harm with words by using derogatory language. [-2]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    It disrespects the dignity of the individual by engaging in name-calling. [-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 personal attacks rather than constructive criticism. [-2]
  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.
    It fails to engage in constructive criticism and instead resorts to personal attacks. [-2]