But not everyone is a fan of disruptive display of outrage, hence the subsequent social media trolls.“ Wasting oxygen,” one commenter says of the Saipan demonstrators.“ Father, forgive them for they know not what they do,” reads another comment.“ ICE, should you look into these terrorist supporters?” reads yet another post. One commenter suggests a priority reset:“ We have more pressing issues that need to be addressed like protecting minors from sexual abuse and solving the meth epidemic on Guam.”

We are in a topsy-turvy period in history, which sees the rise of public protests in the global landscape. These actions sometimes include aggressive disruptions, confrontational stunts, violent resistance and public riots.

Too often we wonder— if not denounce— what may seem to us as desperation or irrational cry for attention. Why, we ask, would people choose such belligerent forms of protest when there are more conventional platforms such as petitions, public hearings and peaceful demonstrations.

The Conversation, a network of media outlets, has published its new research, which seeks to explain the hostile option.

“ Contrary to popular belief, people do not only turn to confrontational protest because they are desperate or lack political alternatives,” the Conversation said in a report published on May 20.

The Conversation’ s surveys of 3,833 people in Germany, Turkey and the UK found that people choose confrontational action when they believe it is effective and legitimate for achieving their group’ s political goals.

“ That said, in some protests, confrontational tactics may emerge spontaneously as a self-defense, driven by immediate threats. But it is not simply an emotional outburst or a last resort: it can be a strategic choice.

“ This challenges a widely discussed idea in social and political psychology called the nothing-to-lose hypothesis. According to this view, people are driven to confrontational protest when they see non-confrontational action( such as voting, petitioning, or authorized marches) as ineffective. This is often because they have little political trust or are oppressed. Our studies ultimately tested this hypothesis.

“ We found that most people rated non-confrontational actions as more effective than confrontational ones. But they still saw confrontational tactics as worthwhile if they also seemed effective and justifiable. Interestingly, we discovered that low political trust – a lack of belief that the political system works fairly – did not predict confrontational protest. In fact, it was only weakly linked to perceived effectiveness and legitimacy of such tactics.

“ While previous theories suggested that people with nothing to lose would

be the ones most drawn to radical action, our findings paint a more complex picture. People don’ t necessarily need to lose all faith in the political system before considering disruptive protest. Rather, they judge whether a specific tactic will advance their cause and align with their collective moral values,” the report states.

Guam and the CNMI have not reached this level of rage and extremism, but local activists are beginning to turn to“ whinism.” They whine when the military fails to consult the civilian community on defense projects and they whine when the military gives us too much homework to do.

Following last month’ s release of the revised DEIS for the CNMI Military Joint Training on Tinian and the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement / Overseas Environmental Impact Statement for the Mariana Islands Training and Testing, the activist groups issued a statement.“ As military colonies of the United States, our communities are overwhelmed by formal comment periods for military actions that occur simultaneously with the constant use of our lands and waters for war training and testing.”

The DEIS for the Tinian program has been revised to consider public input, consisting of 30,000 comments, from the 2015 commenting period.

On Guam, we’ ve also seen how effective public hearings could be when the DOD eventually cut the number of Marines to be relocated to the island, from 9,000 to 5,000 as a result of our input.

Unfortunately, Guam as a colony lacks the power to change its fate as the tip of the military spear. But we have the power to influence the military’ s decision-making through public participation. We must not squander this power, no matter how limited it may be.

Publisher / Editor-in-Chief Mar-Vic Cagurangan publisher @ pacificislandtimes. com

Contributing Writers Raquel Bagnol Ron Rocky Coloma Zaldy Dandan Theodore Lewis Bryan Manabat Jeffrey Marchesseault Joyce McClure Gabriel McCoard Jack Niedenthal Jayvee Vallejera Aline Yamashita

Sales and Marketing Executive Jan SN Furukawa jan @ pacificislandtimes. com

Administrative Assistant Jinky Villanueva jinky. pacificislandtimes @ gmail. com jinkyvillanueva303 @ yahoo. com

***

Pacific Independent News Service LLC Tumon Sands Plaza 1082 Pale San Vitores Rd. Tumon Guam 96931

Mailing address: P. O. Box 11647 Tamuning, Gu 96931 Telephone:( 671) 929-4210 Email: pacificislandtimes @ gmail. com Website: www. pacificislandtimes. com

The Pacific Island Times is published monthly and circulated in Guam and Palau by the Pacific Independent News Service LLC. Editorial and advertising submissions become property of the Pacific Island Times and cannot be lifted without consent of the publisher. Views and opinions from contributors do not necessarily represent the editorial position of the Pacific Island Times.

4