Michael Schellenberger

Rank 40 of 47
|
Score -95
1/31/2026, 4:04:19 PM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
12d
Even more disturbing is that the article quotes Seth G. Jones @SethGJones saying, “When you start using the language of warfare and treating someone that has an opposing view as a terrorist or as an insurgent, that legitimizes the use of violence against them."

Well, that's
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 critiques the New York Times' portrayal of the January 6 events and its stance on social media's role, suggesting a bias in labeling and a call for censorship. It engages in public discourse by addressing media influence, free speech, and government intervention.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement implies harm by accusing the New York Times of promoting censorship, which could be seen as harmful to free discourse. [-1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    It challenges the integrity of the New York Times, potentially undermining its dignity, but does not engage in direct harassment.
  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 critiques the New York Times' actions but does not engage in personal attacks, focusing on institutional behavior. [+1]
  4. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    It uses its platform to question media practices, aiming to influence public perception of media bias and government censorship. [+1]
  5. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement upholds free speech by criticizing perceived censorship, but its accusatory tone may not fully align with responsible discourse.