Michael Schellenberger

Rank 43 of 47
|
Score -115
9/30/2025, 5:03:35 PM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
16d
An honest answer from Starmer would have been: "Because Tony Blair's pollsters told me that migration was the key to selling digital IDs, which we need to control the population so they support our unpopular agenda including mass migration."
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
19d
@sundarpichai @Google @Keir_Starmer Third question: " Do you think there is digital technology that could help tackle these issues... Processing asylum seekers and managing the UK's borders"

They knew migration was the key since it scrambles Left and Right. So clever!
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
16d
Gas-lighting in the extreme. Asked three separate times why digital IDs are suddenly somehow necessary to stop illegal migration, @Keir_Starmer offers Kamala-level word salad:  "You must have mandatory digital ID in order to work because we have to stop illegal working."
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
19d
The man behind the digital ID push is Larry Ellison, owner of Oracle, CBS, CNN, and, soon, TikTok. He wants data centralization and total surveillance. "Citizens will be on their best behavior because we're constantly watching & recording everything that's going on." Terrifying.

The statement criticizes political figures for perceived hypocrisy regarding digital IDs and migration. It uses a sarcastic tone and personal attacks, questioning the intelligence of a public figure. The intent is to challenge and provoke discussion on the issue of digital IDs and migration policies.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement uses a sarcastic tone and personal attacks, which could be seen as harmful and not conducive to constructive dialogue. [-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 respect the dignity of the individual it criticizes, engaging in a personal attack. [-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 and instead uses ad hominem arguments. [-1]