Michael Schellenberger

Rank 40 of 47
|
Score -95
1/31/2026, 4:14:14 PM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
12d
@SethGJones @nytimes On February 5, in a long piece based on "a digital file containing the precise locations of more than 12 million individual smartphones for several months in 2016 and 2017," NY Times writers @cwarzel and Stuart A. Thompson, who has repeatedly demanded censorship, called J6 an
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 accompanying images engage in public discourse by discussing the terminology used by The New York Times to describe the events of January 6, 2021, as an 'insurrection.' The conversation critiques the consistency and implications of language used in media reporting.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly cause harm but critiques media language, which can influence public perception.
  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 critical of media practices, potentially bordering on harassment if not carefully framed. [-1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement aims to promote understanding of media language use, though it may lack empathy towards differing perspectives.
  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 language, which can be constructive if it encourages dialogue, but risks being perceived as an attack if not balanced. [-1]