I just want to say that, despite my extreme dislike for the fact that we have a (racist, misogynistic, xenophobic, ideologically outmoded and generally uninformed) reality tv star for a president now, I am really disappointed in, and angry with, people who chose to protest said president's inauguration in a violent manner. Destruction of property, physical violence...essentially terrorist activity...none of it changes the fact that the man is still president. All you did was make your cause look like a terrorist mission. If you dislike Trump, follow the example of people like Sen. Sanders or Rep.. Lewis or any of the number of politicians and social activists trying to find a sensible, peaceful way to combat any potentially socially harmful policies that could come about in this administration.
If you're against Trump because you dislike his violent rhetoric (whether the violence be of a sexual, physical, or political type is irrelevant), it seems sort of stupid to act out against that rhetoric with actual, non-rhetorical violence. I hate to say it, but even the Klan manages to be (mostly) peaceful when they rally and protest. They SAY hateful divisive things, but even they know not to throw the first punch. I'm just saying, if you're protesting for some liberal agenda, and you cant even be as peaceful as the f____ing Klan during your protest....there's something wrong with your approach. to protesting You all (violent protesters) basically looked like a bunch of drunk football fans burning couches in the street after your team lost.
I watched a bunch of people on campus peacefully protest in favour of keeping ACA/Obamacare. today I saw footage of people peacefully protesting Trump's inauguration in D.C. and I'm sure we'll see more similar, peaceful protests over the next few months (and next few years, most likely). If Trump somehow, for some reason, starts initiating random hit squads to shoot up neighbourhoods, then you have a right to be violent against Trump and the people who are (literally, not rhetorically) trying to kill you. Outside of that, you have to be peaceful. No exceptions.
As much as I like(d) Obama as president, he DID bomb other countries**, which is non-rhetorical violence in my opinion. Were these same people who were/are violently/destructively protesting Trump's inauguration today violently/destructively protesting the continued military operations like bombings in the Middle East? Most people peacefully protested that kind of thing (and I would assume they will continue to do so, since there's seemingly no end in sight for continued military occupation/operations abroad). So why can't you protest a symbolic ceremony peacefully? Why can't you just take a knee like Colin Kaepernick showed you how to do just recently? He was/is protesting actual, non-rhetorical violence in a way that's both peacefully and thoughtfully executed. He's not setting fire to cop cars when a new sheriff who MIGHT implement racist policing policies is getting sworn in. Protest like Kap if you're going to protest. I don't even like football, but I like Kap because he protests peacefully AND he discusses the reasons for his protest in a smart, though out manner that promotes positive dialogue using his public platform. He's not screaming "EFF THE POLICE!!" into the camera before he breaks a store window with a bat. When did you ever read of Malcolm X (or Farrakhan, for that matter) leading a group of people through D.C. armed with projectiles and with the explicit intent to smash windows and set fires and act like a mob of goons? A black man...a black LEADER..in pre-Civil Rights America didn't do that, even though he faced and experienced real, non-rhetorical violence every day. So why are people doing that now? Over a symbolic ceremony? While this guys been in office for a total of 0 full days?
Part of being an American (especially a 21st century American, where suffrage is the right of every citizen (or at least those with) is dealing with the disappointments you have with the American social system in a direct and involved manner via government systems. If you don't like the president, you spend the next four years either: A) preparing to run a presidential campaign to oppose his/her(someday) re-election OR B) you find and/or support someone with a similar vision as yours who will run in opposition to the current president. If you want to be more directly involved, on a smaller scale, you run for state/local offices or find people with similar viewpoints as you to run for those position. This is where most direct political action occurs anyway (state/local level). No president or national official can, say, go to every school and catch and punish every teacher calling African-American students the n-word in class. But voting in the right school board members who you know will oppose and actively combat those practices DOES allow you to have a more direct impact on those kinds of events, and gives a greater possibility of eradicating those kinds of behaviours in our public institutions. Eventually they might get enough of a backing that they get to be National Education Secretary and can help make those goals you had for your local system become national standards. None of that involves violence or setting anything on fire, and it's all 100% American in both the modern and historical context.
UPDATE 1/23/17: Congratulations to all of the women who protested on 1/21/17. Not only was that HUGE number of protesters well organized, they were (as far as I've seen) COMPLETELY non-violent. All those protestors, all those locations (GLOBALLY, even!)...not one article I've seen talking about any violence. That's how it should be done: on that scale, with that kind of peaceful yet forceful message. I was just really amazed at how...seamless the whole organization of that protest was. Some of the Occupy stuff might have been close to the same size, but they still weren't anywhere near as peaceful as this one. Kudos to the 1/21/17 protestors.
Now, with that on the table, let me say that I hope they use that kind of organization and intelligence to start seeking out a great female candidate for the upcoming election (with the help of and input from the general "People of Colour" community, I hope). I don't know enough about political figures to make a suggestion, but I'm sure there's some woman out there with the (impressive) legal/political mind of Hillary Clinton, but with more charisma and probably youth. I say youth, not just because that would more than likely motivate younger voters, but also because a younger candidate would have, I would assume, less time to be a...well, to be completely caught up in the whole web of political intrigue that comes with being a long-time politician. Part of Obama's appeal (and I assume Trump's) was the fact that they weren't really "Establishment politicians", in terms of coming from political families and also in terms of not having extended political careers (Obama did have a career in state and national politics, but it wasn't some 30+ year involvement like Hillary had. Even if she didn't hold offices, she was involved in politics in a way most political spouses normally aren't. She was/is too smart to NOT have her opinions and ideas be considered, if not implemented, on th esame level of a politicians even if her official titles was 1st Lady of a state or the country). I'm pretty sure there's a great female potential candidate fitting those criteria out there somewhere, so it's time to start looking.
UPDATE 1/31/17: I want to say...I get why women are mad, and I support their protests. I get why Muslims and Americans in general are mad about the TRAVEL ban, and I support their protests. But... Black people are still getting killed every day. Just because it's not on the news, it doesn't mean the problem just somehow magically resolved itself since November.. I feel bad that people can't travel and such, but I'm not going to just let myself get distracted by that and forget the fact that Dylann Roof got taken out for hamburgers by the cops after killing 9 peaceful African Americans, and I'm not going to forget the fact that that Trayvon got shot and killed by a civilian for walking home with some iced tea... and that civilian didn't do a single minute of jail time.. I'm not going to forget that Charles Kinsey got shot in the leg by a cop for doing humanitarian work (peacefully) by trying to help an autistic young man in his charge.. I'm not going to forget about Philando Castile, or Alton Sterling, or any other black person (identified by the media or not) unjustly killed in America by Americans. Black people have been/are being killed before, during and after Trump's inauguration, but since there's other distractions now, all the energy is going to those OTHER causes. I saw a lot of pink hats, but not a lot of BLM shirts. I saw a lot of "Let Travelers In!" picket signs, but not much "Let Black People Live!" signs. People are dying everyday.... for being productive members of society. For being thirsty for an iced tea. For no other reason than the murderers wanted to do it. By cops who face no penalty for their actions. By civilians who face no penalty for their actions. Reports say thousands of African American neighbourhoods have unsafe levels of lead in their water right here in the USA right now, but DAPL is back on the table so the PROSPECT of that water being contaminated in the future (ahem, to emphasize the irony) TRUMPS the fact that millions of African Americans are drinking poison water RIGHT NOW.
So I can't stand with your protests. I can support them in spirit, but I won't join an Anti-Trump cause or an Anti-Travel-Ban cause if the cause I support, which is the right of the Blackman and the Blackwoman to be alive and healthy with an equal shot at success (or failure) in they lifetime, isn't even important enough for you to remember. Some movies with black people finally got nominated for best film and such, and that's it? The problem wasn't solved. Definitely not by some movie nominations or whatever . American teachers are still calling their students "n___r" in class and keeping their jobs. You know? I'm just saying, if you want people like me to support your cause with you, then you have to do the same for people like me. Unity and solidarity aren't one way streets. You watched video after video of black people being shot in cold blood on TV and the internet, but even the most liberal and radical of you just dropped the cause like that (if you ever even spoke on it in the first place). I feel like those protesters (white, black, or whatever) who just moved on and forgot about all of that... Shame isn't a strong enough word for what you should all feel. It breaks my heart to think that for all of you, it was more important to raise your voice for the rights of some people to travel hassle free than it was to even bother remembering the horrifying images of real humans being shot dead in cold blood for nothing in your own country. Footage from just A FEW MONTHS AGO.
And you just flat out forgot, because it wasn't trending on the internet and it wasn't on TV any more. Like somehow things were just going to be better for Black people under Trump then they were under Obama? Really? Like I said earlier, unity works both ways, not just your way. You want me to hold an "Equality For Women" sign with you? Hold a "Remember Alton Sterling" sign with me. You want me to hold a "Free And Open Travel Laws" sign with you? Hold a "Right to be Black and Alive" sign with me.
But.. whatever. It all boils down to:
You just...forgot.
What does all this have to do with "violent protests"? Note how, in general, African Americans almost uniformly as a broad, generalized group protest peacefully. Watch footage of the Charlotte protests from late 2016. The more riotous protestors getting caught on camera doing things like throwing garbage cans through windows are mostly what I call "white riot liberals". If you go back through a lot of footage from Ferguson, Baton Rouge, or any number of recent otherwise peaceful protests , you'll see that while some rioters are obviously black, a lot (if not most) of rioting faces are also white. Like the kids at Berkley after that Milo Yankovich or whatever speech was about to happen. I thought that particular riot was also beyond distasteful. I don't support his views, but he has a right to speak his views, especially if he was invited. That's his right. In fact, I think his existence is probably a good thing, if only for the reason that what he does....in terms of his persona or whatever you want to call it, I guess.... kind of forces the larger conservative group (traditionally considered homophobic) to start questioning some of their core values. But he's just talk. He's essentially gay, conservative, white Dave Chappelle (I don't really view Milo as anything more than a comedian. I can't take him serious enough to consider him anything more than that). They both make jokes and outrageous comments with socio-political context (sometimes with a racial tone) that provoke thought in the minds of their intended audience in a way their audience finds entertaining. I like Dave (a lot) better, but that's my taste. Nobody is pulling down street lamp posts or setting fire to things over a Dave Chappelle concert, so why go crazy and destroy a college campus over Milo Yobdobalina or whatever? African Americans aren't burning down cities over unjust killings of their kin, their friends, their acquaintances, even with unjust punishments for the killers. But you guys are being violent and destructive and rioting over this goofball? Or the big orange goofball? Over words and potentially empty actions? I know that in the past , yes, there have been violent riots by African-Americans in recent history (LA riots, most notably if not most recently), but I believe that those riots should be considered in the context of the history building up to them. The LA Riots of 1992 were a direct reaction to the violence that had been perpetrated on the community for decades and, really (if we're being completely honest), centuries. The King case involved video footage, real live evidence that the world saw and the police involved in the gang-style beating of Mr. King got off. It wasn't that these particular police got away with it, it was the boiling over of all those other "Innocent" verdicts that had been piling up, and this time there was indisputable evidence of excessive force and it STILL went the same way. This was still less than 30 years from the "end" of the Civil Rights Movement Era (generally considered to have "ended" in 1968-1969 time frame), so a lot of people still had those feelings and that anger towards injustice relatively fresh. It was kind of like that realization that none of the laws and speeches politicians and judges and such gave about a new era of equality were all just lip service.. But what I'm saying is that it wasn't the POSSIBLE, theoretical violence those rioters were rioting against. It was the past and present violence they were REACTING to. It's the difference between throwing the first punch or throwing the punch to protect yourself from the person who threw the first punch.
To be fair, I don't know much about specifics of more conservative protests becoming riots in recent history (we'll say the last 10 years or so). I know for a fact, though, that there's most certainly people on the right wing who do the same things too (be violent in their protests and such). I'm just trying to clarify that I'm not trying to specifically target the left wing protestors or their violent fringe. That's just the group seemingly involved in all the recent violent outbursts during protests. To me, sometimes it's like if you sit back and watch the whole show, it's just like.... Berietbart-fringe VS. Huffpost-fringe in terms of who can do the most damage to civil discourse in America. I don't see much difference between those two (admittedly somewhat artificially grouped) factions.. Go to Huffpost and go to Brietbart and split screen the two. Not only do they have a similar layout, they also have a similar content delivery system. Political coverage (bordering on sensationalist, in my opinion) specifically spun so as to play to the respective audiences. Celeb quasi-news dealing with all of the same people regularly appearing on a TMZ or whatever, but packaged in a way as to seem "relevant" and "substantial". And they both seem to have a kind of fringe elements that take it all too far.
** I know enough to know that, in some cases, he probably didn't order a bombing BUT he did "take one for the team" by being viewed, on paper and for the cameras at least, as the person who ordered a bombing. Sometimes things happen, possibly in an accidental way and possibly not, before anyone can call a supervisor much less the president. And part of the job of being president is being the face that owns it on the (inter)national stage when the guy with the itchy launch button finger does the wrong thing.. In a way, the president is a type of "sacrificial lamb" for the public when there's no real specific person to blame for a larger system failure.
****Any seemingly "pro-Milo Yuggabugga" statements I made were PRIOR to me hearing about the apparently pedophilic remarks he made. For very personal reasons (relating to things done to me by adults when I was a child), I don't condone pedophilic remarks, even in a joking manner. Whether or not his original statements were edited or whatever... I can't comment on that. I support free-speech (even when it hurts my feelings), but that goes beyond free speech. It's disgusting. It's not good satire. It's not funny. It's not provocative in any decent way....It's just wrong. Somethings ARE just...wrong. If it were a liberal provocateur saying the same things, I would be equally disgusted.
Having said that (as a victim of pedophilic abuse), I still wouldn't violently protest anything having to do with the guy. I would (and from here on out, I probably WILL) simply ignore him.
Personally, I'd rather forget about him and his words and focus on dealing with how to stop real, "practicing" pedophiles from getting away with their crimes.