Connect with us

Why Some of Your Tweets Are (Probably) a Total Waste of Time and Making the Wrong People Angry




As the editor and publisher of The New Civil Rights Movement, an award-winning news, opinion, and advocacy site that uses social media to help inform our readers, increasingly I’ve noticed a lot of people are angry, frustrated, and are taking those feelings of upset and powerlessness and sending them – right back to us.

While it may feel really good to see a story that makes your blood boil, hit “reply” or “comment” and unleash your totally justified anger, telling the author or publisher of a story how mad you are at a Congressman or Senator does nothing.

In short, you’re tweeting and Facebooking wrong, and it’s not helping anyone, least of all, you.

Case in point:

On Saturday NCRM published a story about a conservative Republican U.S. Congressman who told a pro-choice woman on Twitter that it was his “Constitutional duty, under oath, to protect your life/body,” referring to abortion.

In short, he was wrongly quoting his oath of office, claiming it says he is supposed to support and defend her body and any fetus that might be inside it. That’s just plain false. He’s taken his oath of office eight times now, to support and defend the Constitution, so it’s safe to call his comment not just false, but a lie. (And if it’s not, if he actually believed what he wrote, how did he misunderstand his oath of office to such a great degree? And what else has he been getting wrong?)

After posting the story across both NCRM’s Twitter accounts plus my own personal one, we received several comments attacking the Congressman, who happens to be Iowa’s Steve King.

The responses we got were to be expected:

This man has no moral right representing others.”

It is his constitutional duty to stay away from any woman’s body because it is not his”

Then he hasn’t read the Constitution.”

This congressman is an idiot…

On Facebook, you could multiply the number of comments we got from people furious with Rep. King times 100.

All these responses were fair. Not one of them (probably) were seen by the person who really needed to see them the most, Congressman King, because they were sent to our Twitter and Facebook accounts, not his.

And that’s the problem.

We are a nation of tweeters and facebookers. We’re mad. We’re angry. We’re pissed off. And we’re telling the wrong people.

Sure, it’s fun and sometimes even productive to share how you feel with your  friends, family, and co-workers. That’s great. Share away! But we don’t think you should stop there.

Of course, if you want to continue to vent without the object of your anger – or, happiness, not all stories are bad, even though it feels that way these days – seeing your thoughts, that’s your right and your choice.

But I’m going to ask a big favor: Go further.

If you’re upset/angry/furious/glad/happy/thrilled enough to comment, it’s not a big leap for you to be upset/angry/furious/glad/happy/thrilled enough to comment to the person responsible for that good or bad thing happening to let them know how you feel.

Going forward, whenever possible and appropriate, NCRM will be including the contact information of lawmakers and public servants involved in stories we write, and we’ll be asking you to reach out to them directly. We’ll give you their Twitter names and Facebook pages, and their office information when possible. It often won’t take much, if any, extra time, and it will likely make you (and all of us!) feel better. 

But most importantly, hopefully, it will make our lawmakers and public officials much more aware of how we’re all feeling, and it will let them know we’re watching them – every thing they do.

To be clear, NCRM does not support and will not enable doxxing. We will not publish personal contact information such as personal phone numbers or home addresses, nor will we ever suggest our readers or anyone make inappropriate comments or threats to anyone else. Ever.

But we will make it easier for our readers, who have proven over the eight years we’ve been publishing, to be very passionate and very well-informed, to make their voices heard.

Which, in part, is one of the reasons we were founded: to be a voice for those who didn’t feel they had one.

There’s too much at stake for your voice to not be heard. Especially now.

As always, you’re welcome to tell us what you think too.

We’re on Twitter: @gaycivilrights and @newcivilrights, and I’m @davidbadash. We’re also on Facebook, of course, and you can reach us via email.

Thanks for reading.

To comment on this article and other NCRM content, visit our Facebook page


Image by Ganapati Pujans/Wikimedia 

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.


Debt Ceiling: McCarthy Faces ‘Lingering Anger’ and a Possible Revolt as Far-Right House Members Start Issuing Threats



As House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) continues to negotiate a deal to avoid a debt crisis, members of the far-right Freedom Caucus are growing furious with him over broken promises he made to them.

According to MSNBC political analyst Steve Benen, with a slim GOP majority in the House, McCarthy is walking a tightrope to get a budget deal passed and may need help from House Democrats if members of his caucus refuse to go along with him.

As Benen points out, in order to win the speakership McCarthy agreed to an easier path for a motion to “vacate the chair” which could end his tenure as Speaker. That could come into play if the Freedom Caucus stages a revolt.

“… as the negotiations approach an apparent finish line, the House Republicans’ most radical faction is learning that it isn’t likely to get everything its members demanded — and for the Freedom Caucus, that’s not going to work,” he wrote in his MSNBC column.

ALSO IN THE NEWS: Trump in danger of heightened espionage charges after bombshell report: legal expert

Citing a Washington Times report that stated, “[Freedom Caucus members] want everything from the debt limit bill passed by the House last month plus several new concessions from the White House,” Benen suggested far-right House Republicans are now issuing veiled threats.

In an interview, Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) stated, “I am going to have to go have some blunt conversations with my colleagues and the leadership team. I don’t like the direction they are headed.”

With Politico reporting, “The [House Freedom Caucus] was already unlikely to support a final bipartisan deal, but lingering anger with Kevin McCarthy could have lasting implications on his speakership,” Benen added, “If this is simply a matter of lingering ill-will from members who come to believe that GOP leaders ‘caved,’ the practical consequences might be limited. But let’s also not forget that McCarthy, while begging his own members for their support during his protracted fight for the speaker’s gavel, agreed to tweak the motion-to-vacate-the-chair rules, which at least in theory, would make it easier for angry House Republicans to try to oust McCarthy from his leadership position.”

Adding the caveat that he is not predicting an imminent McCarthy ouster he added, “But if the scope of the Freedom Caucus’ discontent reaches a fever pitch, a hypothetical deal clears thanks to significant Democratic support, don’t be surprised if we all start hearing the phrase ‘vacate the chair” a lot more frequently.”

Continue Reading


Prosecutors Tell Trump They Have a Recording of Him and a Witness: Report



Prosecutors in Donald Trump’s Manhattan criminal trial have notified the ex-president’s attorneys they have a recording of him and a witness. The notification comes in the form of an automatic discovery form, CBS News reports, which “describes the nature of the charges against a defendant and a broad overview of the evidence that prosecutors will present at Trump’s preliminary hearing or at trial.”

CBS reports prosecutors have handed the recording over to Trump’s legal team.

It’s not known who the witness is, nor are any details known publicly about what the conversation entails, or even if it is just audio or if it includes video.

READ MORE: ‘Likely to Be Indicted Soon’: Trump Might Face Seven Different Felonies, Government Watchdog Says

According to the article’s author, CBS News’ Graham Kates, via Twitter, prosecutors say they also have recordings between two witnesses, a recording between a witness and a third party, and various recordings saved on a witness’s cell phones.

Trump is facing 34 felony counts in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case related to his allegedly unlawful attempt to hide hush money payoffs to a well-known porn star by falsifying business records to protect his 2016 presidential campaign.

See the discovery form above or at this link.

Image via Shutterstock


Continue Reading


‘Likely to Be Indicted Soon’: Trump Might Face Seven Different Felonies, Government Watchdog Says



It’s no secret the U.S. Dept. of Justice is investigating Donald Trump for his role in attempting to overturn the 2020 presidential election, and for his likely unlawful removal, retention, and refusal to return hundreds of documents with classified and top secret markings.

Earlier this week Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal reported, “Special counsel Jack Smith has all but finished obtaining testimony and other evidence in his criminal investigation into whether former President Donald Trump mishandled classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago resort.”

And while it’s unknown if or when Trump will be indicted, a government watchdog says the ex-president who is once again staging a White House run is “likely to be indicted soon.” The organization is offering details on what it claims could be seven felony charges he might face.

“The next criminal charges former President Donald Trump may face could well come from Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into Trump’s possession of nearly 300 classified documents — including some marked as top secret — at his Mar-a-Lago residence and business in the year and a half after he left office,” Betsy Schick and Debra Perlin of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) state in a lengthy report published Friday.

READ MORE: DeSantis Slammed by Former High-Level FBI Official After Declaring How He Would Treat Bureau’s Independence

“While Fani Willis’ Fulton County, Georgia investigation into election interference continues, as does a federal investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election, and Alvin Bragg has already indicted Trump in New York for his role in false statements connected to hush money payments to Karen McDougal and Stephanie Clifford (aka Stormy Daniels) during the 2016 presidential campaign, an indictment by Smith in the Mar-a-Lago investigation would yield the first federal charges against the former president,” CREW notes.

“Trump may face charges ranging from obstruction of justice and criminal contempt to conversion of government property and unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material.”

Here is a list of “possible crimes” Trump might be charged with, according to CREW:

Obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C. § 1519)

Criminal contempt (18 U.S.C. § 402)

False statements to federal authorities (18 U.S.C. § 1001)

Conversion of government property (18 U.S.C. § 641)

Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material (18 U.S.C. § 1924)

Removing and concealing government records (18 U.S.C. § 2071)

Gathering national defense information (18 U.S.C. § 793(e))

READ MORE: Republican Complaining It’s ‘Almost Impossible’ for Straight ‘White Guys’ to Get Appointed by Biden Has History of Bigotry

CREW also offers that Trump’s attorneys may try to argue several different defenses, including:

No “knowing” removal

Deference to the intelligence community

Challenging the constitutionality of the Special Counsel regulations

Additionally, several reports this week also appear to suggest an indictment might be coming, and soon.

Citing a Washington Post report published Thursday, several top legal experts are predicting DOJ will charge Donald Trump, and those charges will include obstruction and violations of the Espionage Act.

Earlier this week NYU School of Law professor of law Ryan Goodman said Dept. of Justice Special Counsel Jack Smith had struck “gold” after obtaining the contemporaneous notes of a Trump attorney who counseled the ex-president on his possibly unlawful handling of classified documents.


Continue Reading


Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.