Michael Schellenberger

Rank 40 of 47
|
Score -95
1/31/2026, 3:54:52 PM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
12d
The Times uses the word "insurgency" rather than "insurrection" for its headline, even though not a single one of the people the article criticizes uses that word. Three use the word "insurrection" and one uses the word "revolution."

Perhaps that's because the Times knows that
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
12d
Calling anti-ICE riots an "insurrection" or "insurgency... poses dangers," says @nytimes. It "legitimizes the use of violence," says a CSIS expert.

Funny, then, how The Times labeled January 6 an "insurrection" and the same CSIS expert called J6 a "terrorist incident."

The statement and images engage in public discourse by discussing the implications of language used to describe political events, such as 'insurrection' and 'insurgency.' The conversation critiques the potential for such language to legitimize violence and highlights inconsistencies in media narratives.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement raises concerns about the harm that can result from using martial language, aligning with the principle of 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.
    It respects the privacy and dignity of others by focusing on language and media narratives rather than personal attacks. [+1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by analyzing the impact of language on public perception and violence. [+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.
    It engages in constructive criticism of media practices without resorting to personal attacks. [+1]