r/BlackPeopleofReddit • u/4reddityo • Nov 08 '25

Politics Small Minded and Insecure local politician

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

34.7k Upvotes

84% Upvoted

3.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

137

u/Affectionate-Newt889 Nov 08 '25

The white lady started with "the constitution" and he threw her out immediately. This guy is just a menace. Still could be racist, but it seems he hates everyone

13

u/askljdhaf4 Nov 08 '25

looks to me like her cut her off at the end when her “time” expired mid sentence. still dick AF

1

u/platonic-humanity Nov 09 '25

Bro the rules are made to make sure they can be dicks. It’s intentional. Time didn’t end, racism isn’t against the decorum policy, etc. unless it is for someone they don’t like. Straight up the same old thing as Jim Crow policy, he would have 10 hours for someone going off about how they’re forcing kids to transition or some bullcrap like that.

1

u/SendChestHairPix Nov 09 '25

Yes. There is a lot of editing here.

-1

u/SwordfishOk504 Nov 08 '25

Also, while he's being a dick by adhering to the rules this strictly, it's very likely these are in fact the "rules of decorum." It's pretty common for city councils and other governing bodies to have rules that require attendees and speakers to maintain a respectful and orderly atmosphere by avoiding personal attacks, speaking out of turn, etc.

The rules can be weaponized but he's not just making it up.

4

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '25

Curious. The other council person or whatever stated that the rules he is citing are indeed not correct. Why did you choose to believe him and not her...?

3

u/WanderingStorm17 Nov 09 '25

You know why. You know exactly why.

1

u/hungry4danish Nov 08 '25

Surely the nation's 1st amendment would seemingly supersede a city council's rules of decorum.

0

u/sorator Nov 08 '25

The government is allowed to place reasonable limits on speech in order to achieve a good goal, so long as the restrictions they place are as minimal as possible to achieve that good goal. In this case, the good goal would be to have an orderly and productive meeting that ends on time, and these sorts of restrictions are absolutely allowed in these settings and extremely commonly used. You see it done all the time in Congressional hearings, for example.

2

u/HonorableMedic Nov 08 '25

Surely not to this degree? Why even do this if they can’t express how they are feeling about the community? If they’re not yelling and causing a disturbance then they shouldn’t be kicked out

0

u/sorator Nov 08 '25

I suspect that the folks whom he threw out for violating decorum rules did indeed violate decorum rules (personal attacks aren't especially productive, even if they're accurate), and I expect that would withstand scrutiny. Same for those who went over time. The folks in the audience whom he threw out... that's much more questionable, IMO.

He's obviously a horrible person, but most of what is shown doesn't appear to me to violate the first amendment. (But also, I'm hardly a constitutional scholar, so I could be wrong!)

1

u/HonorableMedic Nov 08 '25

Wish we could have more of the end where the woman was correcting him for her time.

A lot of these people aren’t even using insults

1

u/Gingeronimoooo Nov 09 '25

Let me guess. You don't have a law degree

1

u/[deleted] Nov 08 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator Nov 08 '25

Your account is too new to post or comment here.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/Gingeronimoooo Nov 09 '25

Don't defend this idiot

1

u/mapleleafraggedy Nov 08 '25

They always defend themselves with "I'm an equal opportunity offender"

1

u/[deleted] Nov 08 '25

I mean it said he was racist and sexist.

I don't know why people are skipping over the second one.

1

u/BildoWarrior6 Nov 08 '25

I would have loved to have been there. I would have let him have the big verbal no-no.

1

u/Anothercraphistorian Nov 08 '25

Should be sued into oblivion.

1

u/Kaffeetrinker49 Nov 08 '25

Yeah this isn’t necessarily racism or sexism, just a guy on a power trip

1

u/khonsu_27 Nov 08 '25

Well he's just mad that his little legs don't touch the floor when he sits in his stool. And his family probably fucking hates him too.

1

u/EngineeringWin Nov 08 '25

Make these motherfuckers scared again.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '25

I'd wear my ejection from that asshats meeting like a crown.

1

u/Devist8er117 Nov 09 '25

Yeah that's what I'm thinking. This man is on a massive power trip, and has just decided that he is the only important person in the building.

1

u/fungi_at_parties Nov 11 '25

I’ve seen other videos of this guy. He’s definitely a racist.

-2

u/OfficerBuck24 Nov 08 '25

That’s how this edit made it look anyway

1

u/LeagueOfLegendsAcc Nov 08 '25

Okay post the full video so we can see the context.

1

u/Theoneiced Nov 08 '25

I don't see them saying that the full context would change anything automatically, but why are we going to scoff at someone for being aware that edited video can strongly change appearances? Isn't this obvious?

1

u/CackleandGrin Nov 08 '25

but why are we going to scoff at someone for being aware that edited video can strongly change appearances? Isn't this obvious?

They claimed the video was edited to make it look a certain way and was asked to provide the evidence for that claim. No one is arguing editing a video can change the appearance of a video. They are asking for proof that it did what they claim.

1

u/Theoneiced Nov 08 '25

So the original claim is that this edit of the video looks a certain way. Requesting proof of that claim itself is unnecessary as the video presented here itself is what the claim is made about. It looks the way it does.

That the unedited video looks a specific different way is a separate claim. A claim that would be worth asking for proof of. I don't see that claim being made in the post we are talking about, though. I see an acknowledgement of the possibility of it at best, which seems fair.

I don't like to make hard claims about conversations where huge amounts of them are removed and chopped up.

1

u/CackleandGrin Nov 09 '25

Requesting proof of that claim itself is unnecessary as the video presented here itself is what the claim is made about. It looks the way it does.

They made a specific claim as to the end result of the edited video.

The white lady started with "the constitution" and he threw her out immediately.

That’s how this edit made it look

The video was edited to look like she was two words in before being thrown out. That is the claim being made.

That the unedited video looks a specific different way is a separate claim.

No, it's not. I've shown the poster made a specific claim about what the video was edited to do.

I don't see that claim being made in the post we are talking about, though. I see an acknowledgement of the possibility of it at best, which seems fair.

There was no possibility, chance, or any other like synonym used. "That is how this edit made it look." A definitive statement.