Michael Schellenberger

Rank 45 of 47
|
Score -151
10/8/2025, 1:42:08 PM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
84d
Receipts:

https://networkcontagion.us/wp-c…

https://today.yougov.com/politic…
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
85d
In the weeks since the assassination of Charlie Kirk, some on the Left have made calls to lower the temperature and re-humanize the other side.

“I admired his passion and commitment to debate,” said California Governor Gavin Newsom. “His senseless murder is a reminder of how
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
84d
Fifty-five percent of people on the Left justify the murder of Trump, five times more liberals than conservatives defend political violence, and not a single high-profile Democrat has called for @jonesjay to drop out. The Left truly can not make its intentions any clearer.
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
85d
We should move on from Virginia A.G. nominee Jay Jones' fantasies about the murder of his political opponent & death of his children, say Democrats. We shouldn’t. The lack of a single, high-profile Democrat demanding Jones withdraw from the race is a terrifying new political low

The statement is a strong critique of political figures and their perceived inaction against violence. It calls for a specific individual to take action and criticizes a political group for supporting violence. The tone is urgent and accusatory.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement could potentially incite further division by using strong language and accusations, which may not align with striving to do no harm. [-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 privacy and dignity of others, as it publicly demands actions from specific individuals and groups. [-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 dialogue and instead uses accusatory language, which may hinder productive discussion. [-1]