Michael Schellenberger

Rank 40 of 47
|
Score -95
1/31/2026, 4:07:51 PM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
12d
@SethGJones On January 7, 2021, @nytimes not only called J6 an "insurrection," it encouraged teachers to teach students that social media was to blame. The Times would go on to demand government censorship of citizens in the name of preventing "insurrection."

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/…
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 and images engage in public discourse by discussing the media's portrayal of the January 6 events and the implications of labeling it as an 'insurrection.' The conversation critiques the use of language and its potential impact on public perception and policy.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement critiques media language, which could be seen as promoting understanding of media influence, but it also risks harm by potentially misrepresenting intentions.
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement respects privacy but could be seen as engaging in a form of media critique that borders on harassment if not carefully articulated. [-1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The intent appears to be to promote understanding of media influence, but the tone may not foster empathy or compassion.
  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.
    The statement engages in criticism of media practices, which is constructive, but the tone could be perceived as adversarial. [-1]