He asked him calmly and respectfully "has there been a law change" and the officer said "yeah, you can't ride your bikes on the boardwalk", which was a lie, the law had not changed and you CAN ride your bike there.
Once the cop LIES to try to trick you out of your rights (like the right to ride your bike on the boardwalk), there's no reason at all to be respectful, he's a douchebag powertripping liar and should be treated as such.
The one who's a dick is the uneducated officer, not the teenager who knows the law. If you are enforcing the law, you had damn well better know what it really is and not just make shit up as you go along. If someone educates you on what you should already know, it's no excuse to start being a smarmy douchebag, which is exactly what the officer did with his "OK, you wanna go that way, we can go that way" which was a clear threat, and his "so, did you get your law degree on facebook" derision, which was funny seeing as the kid knew the law better than he, so where did he get his training in the law, his chosen profession, a cracker jack box? WTF asshole?!?
And he repeatedly asks "where did you get that", but if he had a brain, he would know where laws and statutes are found, and since he quoted it by number (yes, the wrong number) it was clear he was intending to be quoting the legal statutes, not just some internet theory.

No, the officer was absolutely wrong. He didn't tell them you can't ride fast, he said "you can't ride bikes down here, f you could pass that (erroneous) word along, that will keep people from complaining to me...and I won't come talk to you." which means 'do as I say and tell your friends to do it too, or I'll come harass you (and lie to you about the law you haven't broken)'.

My mistake.
I'll admit, his delivery is going down hill these days. I've been a fan for a LONG time, but he's not as good as he once was by far.
I get especially annoyed when he gets upset when his audience groans at a bad taste joke, it's like he doesn't understand that's a POSITIVE reaction to a bad taste joke, and indicates his audience understands it's in bad taste. You would think he would know that after 3+ decades in snarky 'comedy'.

To your points....
When a parent takes the kids side over the teachers....well, that depends on what the issue is, but on it's face that's also coddling. The implication/infrence is that it would be about the child's behavior in class, or their academic performance, and in either case taking the child's side over the teacher is teaching them that they are more important than the authority, and/or that their word is going to be taken over an adult in authority, and their POV or opinion is the only one that matters. That's terrible, and sets them up for failure and/or prison later.
Not telling a child to shut the fuck up when they are rudely interrupting adults DOES breed poorly mannered narcissists, as it's teaching the child that what they have to say is the MOST important thing, far more important than the adult discussion they are interrupting. That's terrible, bad manners, completely unrealistic, and not good for the child's development into a decent human being. Children are not adults, and 99.9% of the time what they want to say/ask is not important. Even in those rare cases where it is important, not teaching them to not interrupt creates mannerless narcissistic douchebags that never allow other people to speak and believe their every fleeting thought is golden.
Asking a kid where they want to go to dinner....OK, that's stupid. If you just ask them, the child isn't automatically in control. If you always ask them at every meal and defer to their whim over the wishes of adults (which is what I think he meant, but not what he said), that's coddling and breeding a narcissist that believes his is the only opinion that matters to anyone and should always take precedent over other's needs/wants.

? All the examples he gave were examples of teaching a child that they are the best, most important person in the world.
Allowing your child to kick the seat in front of you on a plane, in a theater, at school, or anywhere is not treating them like a human being, it's coddling.
Teaching that loving yourself is the greatest is coddling and teaching narcissism, not treating them like a human being.
Teaching your child that they are the "best" at everything is coddling and creating a narcissist, not treating them like a human being.
Teaching children to be confident in abilities they don't possess, and simply vilifying evidence that they really aren't proficient is coddling, not treating them like a human being, and it's teaching them to be a ridiculous douchebag.
Giving the same accolades for failure as are given for success is not treating them like a human being, it's coddling and teaching them that mere existence=success, which is absolute bullshit.
I'm confused about what examples you mean, because every one he gave made sense to me and seemed to be an example of coddling.

Pretty much every douchebag that sells fur to the modern jackets people wear.
That's for the ones that have the bit of fur along the hood and shoulders.

The ones with more fur are made by skinning a mink alive.



Also F**K hunters.

What kind of douchebag still uses that kind of foot breaking trap? I think they should have one attached to each limb and be left pinned to the ground somewhere they won't be found, like they do to random animals.
Hunting is one thing, indiscriminate trapping like this is nothing more than random hard core animal abuse by lazy or terrible people.

London, Ontario residents are great for the most part. What your seeing is Western University students, as usual, tanked out of their skulls on their best drunken behaviour. Mostly douchebags from Toronto with a Frat complex.

Funny enough, I remember this place (The Gatsby) as a ripper joint when I lived there 25 years ago.

Okay, and let me clarify were you did indeed say it should be forever held against him.

"Yes, it's OK, and normal, for future employers to investigate potential applicants and disqualify them if they show insanely poor judgement publicly like this guy did. You think that's not OK?"

I am owner Newt of Newt's Fabrications and Misunderstandings. I see this guy applying and look into his past. Would YOU hire this guy? Would you, as a black employer perhaps, offer this guy a job working with other black employees?

No? So moving on. You think Walmart wants this racist? Even 20 years from now? Why the fuck would they do that when they have a plethora of job applicants to do that?

So he moves on to Lawdeedaw's Lawn Service. I barely pay minimum wage, and I work him like a dog. Since I am the job he can get, he takes me up. His history is held against him and he has to settle.

Oh, kinda like what happens to blacks who just want to be productive...and have committed past crimes.

Edit Added Later:

Oh, and enouch and VooDooV "defend" this guy much more than me...yet you implied I was a racist douchebag...in fact I never defended him at all and left them out...oddly enough...

In fact I
1-Attacked most businesses as greedy.
2-Said most racists like him are just too proud to take government funds (But I didn't elaborate as to how/why.)
3-And stated that the past should not indefinitely be held against people.

Unless I missed a post from myself (possible) I never even said this guy should keep his job...

"WHAT?!?
What a racist, disgusting thought.
So, you're saying all black men and women are publicly disgusting people that need their actions hidden to be employable?!?
Er Mer Gerd! Did you REALLY just write that? Do you really think that? No wonder you're defending the racist douchebag."

I am not sure how defending minorities got turned into a racist statement...first, I said that our criminal justice system forever holds records against people (Ie., when they apply for a job, benefits, etc.) I stated I disagree with that because it's racist. This is because blacks are targeted by the law to a far greater rate than whites--even doing the same crimes.

Second, this was because you said the racist's viewpoints should be held indefinitely against him. Since we could apply "crimes" against blacks, that logic is what our system uses to be racist. It should discontinue in all forms.

Third, this was all pretty crystal clear. Often you have these fits, and blame them on my lack of clarity. (Kind of like how you blame me for assuming but never consider your assumptions as possibly incorrect.) This is obviously not the case here because there is no way I reasonable said anything close to what you read. I, therefore, assume, based on your past misconstrued responses, you simply want to start this shit.

(I find it funny, when I engage Choas, he can understand when he makes mistakes in reading my posts, and he apologizes, and he rarely does it...)

WHAT?!?
What a racist, disgusting thought.
So, you're saying all black men and women are publicly disgusting people that need their actions hidden to be employable?!?
Er Mer Gerd! Did you REALLY just write that? Do you really think that? No wonder you're defending the racist douchebag.

To your other 'point'.
How can I tell he 's taking my tax dollars for certain...I can't...but it's insanely more likely that he is, being unemployed and unemployable, taking unemployment than it is that the protesters are (like he claims). Most ridiculous asshats like this want to THINK they are 'too proud' to take what they call a 'handout', right until that second it's available to them, then it's 'free money they'd be stupid to not take'. The states with the most hard core, anti welfare right wingers are also ALWAYS the states that take the most tax dollars and give the fewest. These 'hard working proud' people ARE the welfare queens they complain about.

EDIT:And can you please explain how one kind of 'tax dollar' is different from another 'tax dollar'? All public programs are paid into by tax payers. Public 'unemployment insurance' is no different from any other 'welfare' program...you're forced to pay in, you're allowed to take out if you prove you qualify. That silly thinking is how idiots convince themselves that THEY are hard working upright people and THOSE PEOPLE are just lazy takers, when they are all doing the exact same thing, taking from the public fund for their personal needs.

Well, yes, that's possible but not likely, to hold that theory you must assume the people running it are both 1)100% tolerant of antagonistic racist behavior and 2)liars. I'll give them the benefit of a doubt that they didn't bow to perceived possible future pressure and actually found this personally disgusting. That's not a stretch for most. It's also quite possible they saw it as a potential internal lawsuit they were nipping in the bud.

I asked about his rights...I asked..."does he have a right to his job?" The answer is no.

Ahhh, but it's not illegal to ADVOCATE for having sex with children, only to actually HAVE sex with children. What would you arrest him for?

'intent to harm'? Certainly not. For pedophiles, they don't think having sex with children is harmful to them, so there's no intent to harm. On the other hand, the racist DID intend to harm (intentional infliction of emotional distress is a crime in many places) those he ridiculed, he just isn't very good at it.

Advocating for legalization of something is not the same as advocating people doing it illegally....so no.

If the company has a strict 100% no drug policy, yes. I hate those kinds of policies, but I do see that private companies have the right to hire people they trust, and if using drugs makes them lose that trust in a person, they can fire them...for any stupid thing really.

I'm pretty sure we have laws protecting people from being fired based on political affiliation...so no.

Again, I never said it was justice. I said it's reality. I actually mentioned that I think it's overboard that he's essentially unemployable now, but also mentioned that he could get a job with Trump, or any number of other employees that don't have a problem with his racism. Being fired for ridiculing random strangers for being non-white and therefore on welfare...well, that's poetic justice at least, if not pure justice. Poetic justice is a form of justice...so yes.

Companies have every right to not employ grotesque and offensive people. Don't you think?

Again...intentional infliction of emotional distress...that's harm. Not physical harm, but harm none the less. You may disagree, but you're disagreeing with the law and supreme court, not me.

They were no threat to his livelihood, he's not a fracker, he's in construction.


When is it OK to hold them to company policy? When they are making public, recorded, unambiguous, inapropriate statements and actions. The company draws the line, the company decides where, the company enforces it. If this were due to an outside influence, I would think differently, but because the company itself wrote how disgusted they are and that they have a zero tolerance policy for this...it's fine. He's not just a racist bastard off work...if they have a single person of color working for them, they just saved themselves from a HUGE lawsuit for allowing a hostile work environment.

Yes, the courts have said they have that right.

Again...no PC police here, just his company bosses that were outraged and disgusted with him...and they fired him. This is not new, or strange in any way. It happens hundreds of times daily.

Why? Because we have decided that firing/denying service to someone based on their (or your) religion is not acceptable, and codified that in law. Racists have no such protection, either by society or the law.

yes, I can look at the entire situation and see that some justice was served. I can also look to the future and see that it likely will be over served....but not necessarily. He just needs to apply to the Trump campaign, they love this kind of person, then it will be pure justice.

Look to the past. This 'moral calculus' has been in effect and in use for decades. I find it disturbing that you only get upset about it when it's applied to racist douchebags...he's insanely far from the first one.

Once again...NO PC POLICE HERE. Why don't you get it? Come on man...please...just GET IT. This is a private companies sole action...not bowing to PC police...the PC police didn't have time to find out where he worked and complain, the company saw it and said 'Aww HELL no!".

I would also rather keep my liberty and freedoms...like the liberty and freedom to hire people that share my level of civility, and display that at all times, not only while being paid. Fortunately for me, that's what the law says today...but if people thinking like you have your way, that liberty and freedom will be lost and companies will be forced to hire and not fire disgusting pieces of racist shit like this...because people that think like you are can't fathom that his job found this disgusting, you've decided it MUST have been the PC thugs (or fear of them) that forced his job to fire him, PC thugs that must be fought, so you're fighting. To me, that's just sad, and incredibly poorly thought through or understood...and a bit like seeing racism where it doesn't exist.

You have your liberty and freedom to do as you wish...there was NEVER the freedom to do what you wished AND HAVE NO CONSEQUENSE FOR YOUR ACTIONS. That's what you're advocating. This isn't about a law, it's a private company's private decision...no right has been removed, you have the right to be as disgusting as you wish, you don't have a right to force yourself into a job.

In short, this is his (non existent) right to keep his job VS his bosses right to fire him. The right right won out.

EDIT: It seems you two have not considered the possibility that the company might be owned by a black person.

Congratulations! Your comment on Disney Are Being Douchebags To Quentin has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 7 Badge!

Your video, Disney Are Being Douchebags To Quentin, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Disney Are Being Douchebags To Quentin has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579 on that post.