from the back-and-forth dept
This week, three of our four winning comments came in response to our thorough look at why the Charging Bull sculptor's supporters are off-base. Taking first place on the insightful side was jupiterkansas making the important point that while the artist has every right to disapprove of the Fearless Girl statue, there are much better ways to handle it than making legal threats:
He could have also spoken to the press, made a film about it, launched a protest, or done any number of other perfectly valid ways to draw attention to the problem without making a legal issue out of it.
A real artist might have come up with something else to add to the situation to comment on it even further.
In second place, we've got an anonymous commenter who expanded on my tweet about how things aren't automatically disqualified as art because they are also ads:
If the Fearless Girl "isn't art" because a corporation paid for it and attached an ad, then there is very little art anywhere in the world. The artistic accomplishments of the Renaissance, for example, happened because the catholic church and the business leaders of the day had excess income, and decided to use that income to pay artists to create works of art that the church and businessmen could then show off to prove how awesome they were. So no art was actually created.
For editor's choice on the insightful side, we start out on our post about the federal agent who lost immunity after bullying and interrogating an elderly woman and forcing her to stand around in urine-soaked clothes for two hours. The loss of immunity is good, but one anonymous commenter quite fairly wondered about the other officers on the scene:
So Conley gets his immunity stripped.
What about all the other "good apples" that stood around and did nothing? No punishment for them?
Please, cop apologists - tell me more about how it's just a few bad apples.
Next, we head to our post about the government's new angle on potentially going after Julian Assange, where we mentioned the fact that the Ecuadorian Embassy doesn't necessarily respect US law. ThaumaTechnician noted that there's plenty of that to go around:
Yeah, well then again, neither is the US Administration, Congress, the US Senate, the CIA, the NSA, the US Military, ...
Add to that: "nor are they respectful of international law, UN sanctions, ethical considerations, basic human decency..."
Over on the funny side, we start out by returning to the Charging Bull post where Richard Wordsworthy won first place with an analogy highlighting the asburdity of moral rights:
I'm introducing a new craft rum to the market, but I retain all control of what cola's you can put with it. How dare you destroy my authenticity with a brand I don't deem worthy!
For second place on the funny side, I have to admit I think I missed a reference or something in the joke, because I don't get it. In our post about the ongoing legal issues around a sorority's secret handshake, one commenter suggested it would be good for "luggage" (?) and an anonymous commenter took the idea to heart:
an aside to my assistant: Remind me to change the handshake on my luggage
(I'm sure I will feel stupid once someone explains that to me, so, have at it!)
For editor's choice on the funny side, we've got a pair of good ol' fashioned puns. First up, we return to the Chargin Bull post one last time, where one commenter wondered why the Fearless Girl was opposing bull markets, and Gary offered this groaner:
Because they are unbearable?
Finally, after we reported on the potential antitrust issues that could arise if the rumours about Chrome adding a built-in adblocker are true, one anonymous commenter set themselves up for a rimshot:
Google's taking a big risk with this move. You might even call it an alpha bet.
That's all for this week, folks!