One of the "Special Snowflakes" (NSFW Language)

So, this little example of commentary (allegedly) from one of the rioters at last week's inauguration ceremonies showed up bouncing around today:

Apparently being posted on one of the 4chan political boards and elsewhere. 
Now, while it has a certain funny irony to it if true, it also should be incentive for some deeper thought. 
First off - let's examine the open admissions in this person's post. Which, match similar public statements at other such "protests" over the past two decades, and thus has obviously become accepted practice. Let's see - we have admissions of plans to assault others, to damage property, and all with the goal of intimidation towards the other side. And, very obviously, with the expectation that, just like "times before," there would be no significant consequences for said actions. 
In big part, this is a direct result of society LETTING such things become accepted behavior. In an ever-downward spiral from the 1960's up to today, "protest" for many groups has become completely synonymous with violent activity. Now, this is certainly not the case for every group, or every cause - but it has become the norm more than not. Often it is nothing more than an element of 10% or so who show up with these goals in mind, because they know that such activity will get 90% of the press coverage. And, when such events occur, what happens now? Officers and communities step back and allow such activity, either refusing to shut it down, or making only the merest token of interventions. When businesses and residences are suffering thousands of dollars in damages, when officers and other individuals are injured attempting to limit the spread of the violence, the local political drive is towards accomodation rather than control of the situation. Witness Baltimore's mayor in 2016 and the famous "">we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well" statement made in the public media. All of this often done in the name of respecting the First Amendment rights of the protestors...
Funny thing, that. Being a big fan of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the First Amendment discusses "peaceable assembly".  Neither the Founding Fathers, nor general society meant for it to cover wanton distruction, looting, or violence towards others. Which brings me back to the individual in question. Because it is absolutely apparent he DOES believe he is the victim in all of this - "We're the good guys." The outrage at being held accountable for such behaviors, the amazement that members are abandoning the cause when they might have to face consequences... all of it showing a mindset that somehow, because they're protesting against "The Man," in all his various forms, they should be held to a different standard. As sad as it is to realize, he is a victim in a way, for we have failed him. Much like a juvenile who commits crime after crime, with only the merest lectures as penalty, and then is shocked when at age 18 the same offense lands him with a jail term, we have taught the wrong lessons. By no means am I condoning a police state, or in any way saying we should cut down on protests or the rights of the people to address their government - we are founded on those beliefs, and they have been instrumental in addressing many wrongs throughout history. But, when we allow uncivilized behaviors, we only encourage more of it. When we give up the streets to destruction, we reap the consequences. And, when we fail to hold our citizens to the same standards of decency as others, it will only lead to more individuals who are shocked when they finally go too far and are held accountable.