However, the danger in opting for disruption instead of dialogue to make your point is that you're asserting that numbers are all that counts; not rational discussion leading to thoughtful decisions. Which leaves those you disrupted little choice but to run the numbers, confirm the bullies are a tiny bigoted splinter group, they can safely ignore. Then they enact unchanged what you might have improved.
Not that you left them any other option.
These meetings are not an opportunity for rational debate. They are
only an opportunity to express outrage.
It reminds me of shareholders meetings. If a proposition is brought forward for a vote at such a meeting, it almost certainly means that someone has already figured out that there are enough votes to carry the motion. Discussion and questions are entertained, but it's too late to prevent it from passing. Then why express outrage? Because there are minority oppression rights. And if your point seems dangerous enough, and if you appear motivated enough, you might be taken seriously enough to be accommodated in some way.
Same thing is true in politics. When you run roughshod over someone because you can, you will get your way in the short run. However, it can be hard to assess the leverage that can be gained by the losing side if they have been perceived to have been bullied. Often moderates will align with such groups over time on the sheer principle that most people can't stand bullies, particularly when that bully is a public servant they can get rid of.
