Datasets:

---

innovation-hacking2

/

shitposting_dataset1

like 0

[ "probably stupid question. but are they putting hardware there and let polish operate it or they also putting their own crews?", ">\n\nTheir own crews. That's why they didn't trasfer the patriot to Ukraine after Poland first suggested it in their pr stunt, since it would have meant to deploy German forces in Ukraine.", ">\n\nA system yes, not a battery including crew...", ">\n\nPoland has never requested deploying German personnel to Ukraine... They insisted to supply battery which is happening after few weeks of histery created by German media. I am tired of strightening these idiotic statements on every corner. This has become ridicoulous. How Poland which only supplies hardware could request other country to send their troops to Ukraine? What twisted way of thinking it is? Or it is only defence mechanism to create chaos and blur point of case?\n^Germany will now \"join the United States in supplying an additional Patriot air defense battery to Ukraine,\" the White House announced.^ which is exactly what Poland said", ">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 66%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe Bundeswehr will begin the relocation of Patriot air defence systems into Poland's territory in the coming days following a deal that was agreed upon by Berlin and Warsaw last month.\nThe German offer to deploy Patriots in Poland was made after a missile explosion in Przewodów near the Polish border with Ukraine, which early investigations suggest was a stray Ukrainian air defence rocket.\nThe German Defence Ministry rejected the proposal, pointing out that the weapons are a part of an internal NATO air defence system and cannot be used outside the Alliance.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: defence^#1 Patriot^#2 system^#3 Poland^#4 Polish^#5", ">\n\nMan only 80 years ago the idea of Germany moving military equipment into Poland would have freaked folks the heck out bahaha", ">\n\nI bet some German troops are having some jokes going around, wish I could hear them", ">\n\nI dont think germans make many jokes about world war two", ">\n\nOh we do, but nust the light stuff, nothing to offensive we joke about italy during ww2" ]

[ "probably stupid question. but are they putting hardware there and let polish operate it or they also putting their own crews?", ">\n\nTheir own crews. That's why they didn't trasfer the patriot to Ukraine after Poland first suggested it in their pr stunt, since it would have meant to deploy German forces in Ukraine.", ">\n\nA system yes, not a battery including crew...", ">\n\nPoland has never requested deploying German personnel to Ukraine... They insisted to supply battery which is happening after few weeks of histery created by German media. I am tired of strightening these idiotic statements on every corner. This has become ridicoulous. How Poland which only supplies hardware could request other country to send their troops to Ukraine? What twisted way of thinking it is? Or it is only defence mechanism to create chaos and blur point of case?\n^Germany will now \"join the United States in supplying an additional Patriot air defense battery to Ukraine,\" the White House announced.^ which is exactly what Poland said", ">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 66%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe Bundeswehr will begin the relocation of Patriot air defence systems into Poland's territory in the coming days following a deal that was agreed upon by Berlin and Warsaw last month.\nThe German offer to deploy Patriots in Poland was made after a missile explosion in Przewodów near the Polish border with Ukraine, which early investigations suggest was a stray Ukrainian air defence rocket.\nThe German Defence Ministry rejected the proposal, pointing out that the weapons are a part of an internal NATO air defence system and cannot be used outside the Alliance.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: defence^#1 Patriot^#2 system^#3 Poland^#4 Polish^#5", ">\n\nMan only 80 years ago the idea of Germany moving military equipment into Poland would have freaked folks the heck out bahaha", ">\n\nI bet some German troops are having some jokes going around, wish I could hear them", ">\n\nI dont think germans make many jokes about world war two", ">\n\nOh we do, but nust the light stuff, nothing to offensive we joke about italy during ww2", ">\n\nPerhaps I meant, I dont think germans make many jokes about the way world war two was started" ]

[ "probably stupid question. but are they putting hardware there and let polish operate it or they also putting their own crews?", ">\n\nTheir own crews. That's why they didn't trasfer the patriot to Ukraine after Poland first suggested it in their pr stunt, since it would have meant to deploy German forces in Ukraine.", ">\n\nA system yes, not a battery including crew...", ">\n\nPoland has never requested deploying German personnel to Ukraine... They insisted to supply battery which is happening after few weeks of histery created by German media. I am tired of strightening these idiotic statements on every corner. This has become ridicoulous. How Poland which only supplies hardware could request other country to send their troops to Ukraine? What twisted way of thinking it is? Or it is only defence mechanism to create chaos and blur point of case?\n^Germany will now \"join the United States in supplying an additional Patriot air defense battery to Ukraine,\" the White House announced.^ which is exactly what Poland said", ">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 66%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe Bundeswehr will begin the relocation of Patriot air defence systems into Poland's territory in the coming days following a deal that was agreed upon by Berlin and Warsaw last month.\nThe German offer to deploy Patriots in Poland was made after a missile explosion in Przewodów near the Polish border with Ukraine, which early investigations suggest was a stray Ukrainian air defence rocket.\nThe German Defence Ministry rejected the proposal, pointing out that the weapons are a part of an internal NATO air defence system and cannot be used outside the Alliance.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: defence^#1 Patriot^#2 system^#3 Poland^#4 Polish^#5", ">\n\nMan only 80 years ago the idea of Germany moving military equipment into Poland would have freaked folks the heck out bahaha", ">\n\nI bet some German troops are having some jokes going around, wish I could hear them", ">\n\nI dont think germans make many jokes about world war two", ">\n\nOh we do, but nust the light stuff, nothing to offensive we joke about italy during ww2", ">\n\nPerhaps I meant, I dont think germans make many jokes about the way world war two was started", ">\n\nGiven the limited range of the Patriots, they'll need quite a few more to cover the border." ]

[ "probably stupid question. but are they putting hardware there and let polish operate it or they also putting their own crews?", ">\n\nTheir own crews. That's why they didn't trasfer the patriot to Ukraine after Poland first suggested it in their pr stunt, since it would have meant to deploy German forces in Ukraine.", ">\n\nA system yes, not a battery including crew...", ">\n\nPoland has never requested deploying German personnel to Ukraine... They insisted to supply battery which is happening after few weeks of histery created by German media. I am tired of strightening these idiotic statements on every corner. This has become ridicoulous. How Poland which only supplies hardware could request other country to send their troops to Ukraine? What twisted way of thinking it is? Or it is only defence mechanism to create chaos and blur point of case?\n^Germany will now \"join the United States in supplying an additional Patriot air defense battery to Ukraine,\" the White House announced.^ which is exactly what Poland said", ">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 66%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe Bundeswehr will begin the relocation of Patriot air defence systems into Poland's territory in the coming days following a deal that was agreed upon by Berlin and Warsaw last month.\nThe German offer to deploy Patriots in Poland was made after a missile explosion in Przewodów near the Polish border with Ukraine, which early investigations suggest was a stray Ukrainian air defence rocket.\nThe German Defence Ministry rejected the proposal, pointing out that the weapons are a part of an internal NATO air defence system and cannot be used outside the Alliance.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: defence^#1 Patriot^#2 system^#3 Poland^#4 Polish^#5", ">\n\nMan only 80 years ago the idea of Germany moving military equipment into Poland would have freaked folks the heck out bahaha", ">\n\nI bet some German troops are having some jokes going around, wish I could hear them", ">\n\nI dont think germans make many jokes about world war two", ">\n\nOh we do, but nust the light stuff, nothing to offensive we joke about italy during ww2", ">\n\nPerhaps I meant, I dont think germans make many jokes about the way world war two was started", ">\n\nGiven the limited range of the Patriots, they'll need quite a few more to cover the border.", ">\n\nThere’s a joke about the New England Patriots’ secondary in here somewhere." ]

[ "probably stupid question. but are they putting hardware there and let polish operate it or they also putting their own crews?", ">\n\nTheir own crews. That's why they didn't trasfer the patriot to Ukraine after Poland first suggested it in their pr stunt, since it would have meant to deploy German forces in Ukraine.", ">\n\nA system yes, not a battery including crew...", ">\n\nPoland has never requested deploying German personnel to Ukraine... They insisted to supply battery which is happening after few weeks of histery created by German media. I am tired of strightening these idiotic statements on every corner. This has become ridicoulous. How Poland which only supplies hardware could request other country to send their troops to Ukraine? What twisted way of thinking it is? Or it is only defence mechanism to create chaos and blur point of case?\n^Germany will now \"join the United States in supplying an additional Patriot air defense battery to Ukraine,\" the White House announced.^ which is exactly what Poland said", ">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 66%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe Bundeswehr will begin the relocation of Patriot air defence systems into Poland's territory in the coming days following a deal that was agreed upon by Berlin and Warsaw last month.\nThe German offer to deploy Patriots in Poland was made after a missile explosion in Przewodów near the Polish border with Ukraine, which early investigations suggest was a stray Ukrainian air defence rocket.\nThe German Defence Ministry rejected the proposal, pointing out that the weapons are a part of an internal NATO air defence system and cannot be used outside the Alliance.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: defence^#1 Patriot^#2 system^#3 Poland^#4 Polish^#5", ">\n\nMan only 80 years ago the idea of Germany moving military equipment into Poland would have freaked folks the heck out bahaha", ">\n\nI bet some German troops are having some jokes going around, wish I could hear them", ">\n\nI dont think germans make many jokes about world war two", ">\n\nOh we do, but nust the light stuff, nothing to offensive we joke about italy during ww2", ">\n\nPerhaps I meant, I dont think germans make many jokes about the way world war two was started", ">\n\nGiven the limited range of the Patriots, they'll need quite a few more to cover the border.", ">\n\nThere’s a joke about the New England Patriots’ secondary in here somewhere.", ">\n\nThe Patriot Defense System has so many gaps, Buffalo returned two kick-off TDs in the same game against it." ]

[ "probably stupid question. but are they putting hardware there and let polish operate it or they also putting their own crews?", ">\n\nTheir own crews. That's why they didn't trasfer the patriot to Ukraine after Poland first suggested it in their pr stunt, since it would have meant to deploy German forces in Ukraine.", ">\n\nA system yes, not a battery including crew...", ">\n\nPoland has never requested deploying German personnel to Ukraine... They insisted to supply battery which is happening after few weeks of histery created by German media. I am tired of strightening these idiotic statements on every corner. This has become ridicoulous. How Poland which only supplies hardware could request other country to send their troops to Ukraine? What twisted way of thinking it is? Or it is only defence mechanism to create chaos and blur point of case?\n^Germany will now \"join the United States in supplying an additional Patriot air defense battery to Ukraine,\" the White House announced.^ which is exactly what Poland said", ">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 66%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe Bundeswehr will begin the relocation of Patriot air defence systems into Poland's territory in the coming days following a deal that was agreed upon by Berlin and Warsaw last month.\nThe German offer to deploy Patriots in Poland was made after a missile explosion in Przewodów near the Polish border with Ukraine, which early investigations suggest was a stray Ukrainian air defence rocket.\nThe German Defence Ministry rejected the proposal, pointing out that the weapons are a part of an internal NATO air defence system and cannot be used outside the Alliance.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: defence^#1 Patriot^#2 system^#3 Poland^#4 Polish^#5", ">\n\nMan only 80 years ago the idea of Germany moving military equipment into Poland would have freaked folks the heck out bahaha", ">\n\nI bet some German troops are having some jokes going around, wish I could hear them", ">\n\nI dont think germans make many jokes about world war two", ">\n\nOh we do, but nust the light stuff, nothing to offensive we joke about italy during ww2", ">\n\nPerhaps I meant, I dont think germans make many jokes about the way world war two was started", ">\n\nGiven the limited range of the Patriots, they'll need quite a few more to cover the border.", ">\n\nThere’s a joke about the New England Patriots’ secondary in here somewhere.", ">\n\nThe Patriot Defense System has so many gaps, Buffalo returned two kick-off TDs in the same game against it.", ">\n\nYou. I like you." ]

[ "probably stupid question. but are they putting hardware there and let polish operate it or they also putting their own crews?", ">\n\nTheir own crews. That's why they didn't trasfer the patriot to Ukraine after Poland first suggested it in their pr stunt, since it would have meant to deploy German forces in Ukraine.", ">\n\nA system yes, not a battery including crew...", ">\n\nPoland has never requested deploying German personnel to Ukraine... They insisted to supply battery which is happening after few weeks of histery created by German media. I am tired of strightening these idiotic statements on every corner. This has become ridicoulous. How Poland which only supplies hardware could request other country to send their troops to Ukraine? What twisted way of thinking it is? Or it is only defence mechanism to create chaos and blur point of case?\n^Germany will now \"join the United States in supplying an additional Patriot air defense battery to Ukraine,\" the White House announced.^ which is exactly what Poland said", ">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 66%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe Bundeswehr will begin the relocation of Patriot air defence systems into Poland's territory in the coming days following a deal that was agreed upon by Berlin and Warsaw last month.\nThe German offer to deploy Patriots in Poland was made after a missile explosion in Przewodów near the Polish border with Ukraine, which early investigations suggest was a stray Ukrainian air defence rocket.\nThe German Defence Ministry rejected the proposal, pointing out that the weapons are a part of an internal NATO air defence system and cannot be used outside the Alliance.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: defence^#1 Patriot^#2 system^#3 Poland^#4 Polish^#5", ">\n\nMan only 80 years ago the idea of Germany moving military equipment into Poland would have freaked folks the heck out bahaha", ">\n\nI bet some German troops are having some jokes going around, wish I could hear them", ">\n\nI dont think germans make many jokes about world war two", ">\n\nOh we do, but nust the light stuff, nothing to offensive we joke about italy during ww2", ">\n\nPerhaps I meant, I dont think germans make many jokes about the way world war two was started", ">\n\nGiven the limited range of the Patriots, they'll need quite a few more to cover the border.", ">\n\nThere’s a joke about the New England Patriots’ secondary in here somewhere.", ">\n\nThe Patriot Defense System has so many gaps, Buffalo returned two kick-off TDs in the same game against it.", ">\n\nYou. I like you.", ">\n\nIf Russia can sell oil through India, Germany can certainly donate anti air weapons through Poland in my book. Remember, Russia are actively targeting civilians with these weapons, still! Give them anti air!" ]

[ "probably stupid question. but are they putting hardware there and let polish operate it or they also putting their own crews?", ">\n\nTheir own crews. That's why they didn't trasfer the patriot to Ukraine after Poland first suggested it in their pr stunt, since it would have meant to deploy German forces in Ukraine.", ">\n\nA system yes, not a battery including crew...", ">\n\nPoland has never requested deploying German personnel to Ukraine... They insisted to supply battery which is happening after few weeks of histery created by German media. I am tired of strightening these idiotic statements on every corner. This has become ridicoulous. How Poland which only supplies hardware could request other country to send their troops to Ukraine? What twisted way of thinking it is? Or it is only defence mechanism to create chaos and blur point of case?\n^Germany will now \"join the United States in supplying an additional Patriot air defense battery to Ukraine,\" the White House announced.^ which is exactly what Poland said", ">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 66%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe Bundeswehr will begin the relocation of Patriot air defence systems into Poland's territory in the coming days following a deal that was agreed upon by Berlin and Warsaw last month.\nThe German offer to deploy Patriots in Poland was made after a missile explosion in Przewodów near the Polish border with Ukraine, which early investigations suggest was a stray Ukrainian air defence rocket.\nThe German Defence Ministry rejected the proposal, pointing out that the weapons are a part of an internal NATO air defence system and cannot be used outside the Alliance.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: defence^#1 Patriot^#2 system^#3 Poland^#4 Polish^#5", ">\n\nMan only 80 years ago the idea of Germany moving military equipment into Poland would have freaked folks the heck out bahaha", ">\n\nI bet some German troops are having some jokes going around, wish I could hear them", ">\n\nI dont think germans make many jokes about world war two", ">\n\nOh we do, but nust the light stuff, nothing to offensive we joke about italy during ww2", ">\n\nPerhaps I meant, I dont think germans make many jokes about the way world war two was started", ">\n\nGiven the limited range of the Patriots, they'll need quite a few more to cover the border.", ">\n\nThere’s a joke about the New England Patriots’ secondary in here somewhere.", ">\n\nThe Patriot Defense System has so many gaps, Buffalo returned two kick-off TDs in the same game against it.", ">\n\nYou. I like you.", ">\n\nIf Russia can sell oil through India, Germany can certainly donate anti air weapons through Poland in my book. Remember, Russia are actively targeting civilians with these weapons, still! Give them anti air!", ">\n\nGive them whatever is needed to stop Russia" ]

[ "probably stupid question. but are they putting hardware there and let polish operate it or they also putting their own crews?", ">\n\nTheir own crews. That's why they didn't trasfer the patriot to Ukraine after Poland first suggested it in their pr stunt, since it would have meant to deploy German forces in Ukraine.", ">\n\nA system yes, not a battery including crew...", ">\n\nPoland has never requested deploying German personnel to Ukraine... They insisted to supply battery which is happening after few weeks of histery created by German media. I am tired of strightening these idiotic statements on every corner. This has become ridicoulous. How Poland which only supplies hardware could request other country to send their troops to Ukraine? What twisted way of thinking it is? Or it is only defence mechanism to create chaos and blur point of case?\n^Germany will now \"join the United States in supplying an additional Patriot air defense battery to Ukraine,\" the White House announced.^ which is exactly what Poland said", ">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 66%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe Bundeswehr will begin the relocation of Patriot air defence systems into Poland's territory in the coming days following a deal that was agreed upon by Berlin and Warsaw last month.\nThe German offer to deploy Patriots in Poland was made after a missile explosion in Przewodów near the Polish border with Ukraine, which early investigations suggest was a stray Ukrainian air defence rocket.\nThe German Defence Ministry rejected the proposal, pointing out that the weapons are a part of an internal NATO air defence system and cannot be used outside the Alliance.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: defence^#1 Patriot^#2 system^#3 Poland^#4 Polish^#5", ">\n\nMan only 80 years ago the idea of Germany moving military equipment into Poland would have freaked folks the heck out bahaha", ">\n\nI bet some German troops are having some jokes going around, wish I could hear them", ">\n\nI dont think germans make many jokes about world war two", ">\n\nOh we do, but nust the light stuff, nothing to offensive we joke about italy during ww2", ">\n\nPerhaps I meant, I dont think germans make many jokes about the way world war two was started", ">\n\nGiven the limited range of the Patriots, they'll need quite a few more to cover the border.", ">\n\nThere’s a joke about the New England Patriots’ secondary in here somewhere.", ">\n\nThe Patriot Defense System has so many gaps, Buffalo returned two kick-off TDs in the same game against it.", ">\n\nYou. I like you.", ">\n\nIf Russia can sell oil through India, Germany can certainly donate anti air weapons through Poland in my book. Remember, Russia are actively targeting civilians with these weapons, still! Give them anti air!", ">\n\nGive them whatever is needed to stop Russia", ">\n\nNATO should bring down missiles in western Ukraine, because they threaten NATO airspace and lead to casualities" ]

[ "probably stupid question. but are they putting hardware there and let polish operate it or they also putting their own crews?", ">\n\nTheir own crews. That's why they didn't trasfer the patriot to Ukraine after Poland first suggested it in their pr stunt, since it would have meant to deploy German forces in Ukraine.", ">\n\nA system yes, not a battery including crew...", ">\n\nPoland has never requested deploying German personnel to Ukraine... They insisted to supply battery which is happening after few weeks of histery created by German media. I am tired of strightening these idiotic statements on every corner. This has become ridicoulous. How Poland which only supplies hardware could request other country to send their troops to Ukraine? What twisted way of thinking it is? Or it is only defence mechanism to create chaos and blur point of case?\n^Germany will now \"join the United States in supplying an additional Patriot air defense battery to Ukraine,\" the White House announced.^ which is exactly what Poland said", ">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 66%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe Bundeswehr will begin the relocation of Patriot air defence systems into Poland's territory in the coming days following a deal that was agreed upon by Berlin and Warsaw last month.\nThe German offer to deploy Patriots in Poland was made after a missile explosion in Przewodów near the Polish border with Ukraine, which early investigations suggest was a stray Ukrainian air defence rocket.\nThe German Defence Ministry rejected the proposal, pointing out that the weapons are a part of an internal NATO air defence system and cannot be used outside the Alliance.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: defence^#1 Patriot^#2 system^#3 Poland^#4 Polish^#5", ">\n\nMan only 80 years ago the idea of Germany moving military equipment into Poland would have freaked folks the heck out bahaha", ">\n\nI bet some German troops are having some jokes going around, wish I could hear them", ">\n\nI dont think germans make many jokes about world war two", ">\n\nOh we do, but nust the light stuff, nothing to offensive we joke about italy during ww2", ">\n\nPerhaps I meant, I dont think germans make many jokes about the way world war two was started", ">\n\nGiven the limited range of the Patriots, they'll need quite a few more to cover the border.", ">\n\nThere’s a joke about the New England Patriots’ secondary in here somewhere.", ">\n\nThe Patriot Defense System has so many gaps, Buffalo returned two kick-off TDs in the same game against it.", ">\n\nYou. I like you.", ">\n\nIf Russia can sell oil through India, Germany can certainly donate anti air weapons through Poland in my book. Remember, Russia are actively targeting civilians with these weapons, still! Give them anti air!", ">\n\nGive them whatever is needed to stop Russia", ">\n\nNATO should bring down missiles in western Ukraine, because they threaten NATO airspace and lead to casualities", ">\n\nAfter the two that struck poland a while back, this is a legit thing that can be done." ]

[ "probably stupid question. but are they putting hardware there and let polish operate it or they also putting their own crews?", ">\n\nTheir own crews. That's why they didn't trasfer the patriot to Ukraine after Poland first suggested it in their pr stunt, since it would have meant to deploy German forces in Ukraine.", ">\n\nA system yes, not a battery including crew...", ">\n\nPoland has never requested deploying German personnel to Ukraine... They insisted to supply battery which is happening after few weeks of histery created by German media. I am tired of strightening these idiotic statements on every corner. This has become ridicoulous. How Poland which only supplies hardware could request other country to send their troops to Ukraine? What twisted way of thinking it is? Or it is only defence mechanism to create chaos and blur point of case?\n^Germany will now \"join the United States in supplying an additional Patriot air defense battery to Ukraine,\" the White House announced.^ which is exactly what Poland said", ">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 66%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe Bundeswehr will begin the relocation of Patriot air defence systems into Poland's territory in the coming days following a deal that was agreed upon by Berlin and Warsaw last month.\nThe German offer to deploy Patriots in Poland was made after a missile explosion in Przewodów near the Polish border with Ukraine, which early investigations suggest was a stray Ukrainian air defence rocket.\nThe German Defence Ministry rejected the proposal, pointing out that the weapons are a part of an internal NATO air defence system and cannot be used outside the Alliance.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: defence^#1 Patriot^#2 system^#3 Poland^#4 Polish^#5", ">\n\nMan only 80 years ago the idea of Germany moving military equipment into Poland would have freaked folks the heck out bahaha", ">\n\nI bet some German troops are having some jokes going around, wish I could hear them", ">\n\nI dont think germans make many jokes about world war two", ">\n\nOh we do, but nust the light stuff, nothing to offensive we joke about italy during ww2", ">\n\nPerhaps I meant, I dont think germans make many jokes about the way world war two was started", ">\n\nGiven the limited range of the Patriots, they'll need quite a few more to cover the border.", ">\n\nThere’s a joke about the New England Patriots’ secondary in here somewhere.", ">\n\nThe Patriot Defense System has so many gaps, Buffalo returned two kick-off TDs in the same game against it.", ">\n\nYou. I like you.", ">\n\nIf Russia can sell oil through India, Germany can certainly donate anti air weapons through Poland in my book. Remember, Russia are actively targeting civilians with these weapons, still! Give them anti air!", ">\n\nGive them whatever is needed to stop Russia", ">\n\nNATO should bring down missiles in western Ukraine, because they threaten NATO airspace and lead to casualities", ">\n\nAfter the two that struck poland a while back, this is a legit thing that can be done.", ">\n\nIf enough batteries enter theater they can provide a good umbrella ADIZ/Area Denial coverage for fast movers to start launching from currently impossible areas.\nThis is what Im hopeful of, air power/combined arms will push things full-tilt for Ukraine." ]

[ "probably stupid question. but are they putting hardware there and let polish operate it or they also putting their own crews?", ">\n\nTheir own crews. That's why they didn't trasfer the patriot to Ukraine after Poland first suggested it in their pr stunt, since it would have meant to deploy German forces in Ukraine.", ">\n\nA system yes, not a battery including crew...", ">\n\nPoland has never requested deploying German personnel to Ukraine... They insisted to supply battery which is happening after few weeks of histery created by German media. I am tired of strightening these idiotic statements on every corner. This has become ridicoulous. How Poland which only supplies hardware could request other country to send their troops to Ukraine? What twisted way of thinking it is? Or it is only defence mechanism to create chaos and blur point of case?\n^Germany will now \"join the United States in supplying an additional Patriot air defense battery to Ukraine,\" the White House announced.^ which is exactly what Poland said", ">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 66%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe Bundeswehr will begin the relocation of Patriot air defence systems into Poland's territory in the coming days following a deal that was agreed upon by Berlin and Warsaw last month.\nThe German offer to deploy Patriots in Poland was made after a missile explosion in Przewodów near the Polish border with Ukraine, which early investigations suggest was a stray Ukrainian air defence rocket.\nThe German Defence Ministry rejected the proposal, pointing out that the weapons are a part of an internal NATO air defence system and cannot be used outside the Alliance.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: defence^#1 Patriot^#2 system^#3 Poland^#4 Polish^#5", ">\n\nMan only 80 years ago the idea of Germany moving military equipment into Poland would have freaked folks the heck out bahaha", ">\n\nI bet some German troops are having some jokes going around, wish I could hear them", ">\n\nI dont think germans make many jokes about world war two", ">\n\nOh we do, but nust the light stuff, nothing to offensive we joke about italy during ww2", ">\n\nPerhaps I meant, I dont think germans make many jokes about the way world war two was started", ">\n\nGiven the limited range of the Patriots, they'll need quite a few more to cover the border.", ">\n\nThere’s a joke about the New England Patriots’ secondary in here somewhere.", ">\n\nThe Patriot Defense System has so many gaps, Buffalo returned two kick-off TDs in the same game against it.", ">\n\nYou. I like you.", ">\n\nIf Russia can sell oil through India, Germany can certainly donate anti air weapons through Poland in my book. Remember, Russia are actively targeting civilians with these weapons, still! Give them anti air!", ">\n\nGive them whatever is needed to stop Russia", ">\n\nNATO should bring down missiles in western Ukraine, because they threaten NATO airspace and lead to casualities", ">\n\nAfter the two that struck poland a while back, this is a legit thing that can be done.", ">\n\nIf enough batteries enter theater they can provide a good umbrella ADIZ/Area Denial coverage for fast movers to start launching from currently impossible areas.\nThis is what Im hopeful of, air power/combined arms will push things full-tilt for Ukraine.", ">\n\nLast time was a bit chaotic." ]

[ "probably stupid question. but are they putting hardware there and let polish operate it or they also putting their own crews?", ">\n\nTheir own crews. That's why they didn't trasfer the patriot to Ukraine after Poland first suggested it in their pr stunt, since it would have meant to deploy German forces in Ukraine.", ">\n\nA system yes, not a battery including crew...", ">\n\nPoland has never requested deploying German personnel to Ukraine... They insisted to supply battery which is happening after few weeks of histery created by German media. I am tired of strightening these idiotic statements on every corner. This has become ridicoulous. How Poland which only supplies hardware could request other country to send their troops to Ukraine? What twisted way of thinking it is? Or it is only defence mechanism to create chaos and blur point of case?\n^Germany will now \"join the United States in supplying an additional Patriot air defense battery to Ukraine,\" the White House announced.^ which is exactly what Poland said", ">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 66%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe Bundeswehr will begin the relocation of Patriot air defence systems into Poland's territory in the coming days following a deal that was agreed upon by Berlin and Warsaw last month.\nThe German offer to deploy Patriots in Poland was made after a missile explosion in Przewodów near the Polish border with Ukraine, which early investigations suggest was a stray Ukrainian air defence rocket.\nThe German Defence Ministry rejected the proposal, pointing out that the weapons are a part of an internal NATO air defence system and cannot be used outside the Alliance.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: defence^#1 Patriot^#2 system^#3 Poland^#4 Polish^#5", ">\n\nMan only 80 years ago the idea of Germany moving military equipment into Poland would have freaked folks the heck out bahaha", ">\n\nI bet some German troops are having some jokes going around, wish I could hear them", ">\n\nI dont think germans make many jokes about world war two", ">\n\nOh we do, but nust the light stuff, nothing to offensive we joke about italy during ww2", ">\n\nPerhaps I meant, I dont think germans make many jokes about the way world war two was started", ">\n\nGiven the limited range of the Patriots, they'll need quite a few more to cover the border.", ">\n\nThere’s a joke about the New England Patriots’ secondary in here somewhere.", ">\n\nThe Patriot Defense System has so many gaps, Buffalo returned two kick-off TDs in the same game against it.", ">\n\nYou. I like you.", ">\n\nIf Russia can sell oil through India, Germany can certainly donate anti air weapons through Poland in my book. Remember, Russia are actively targeting civilians with these weapons, still! Give them anti air!", ">\n\nGive them whatever is needed to stop Russia", ">\n\nNATO should bring down missiles in western Ukraine, because they threaten NATO airspace and lead to casualities", ">\n\nAfter the two that struck poland a while back, this is a legit thing that can be done.", ">\n\nIf enough batteries enter theater they can provide a good umbrella ADIZ/Area Denial coverage for fast movers to start launching from currently impossible areas.\nThis is what Im hopeful of, air power/combined arms will push things full-tilt for Ukraine.", ">\n\nLast time was a bit chaotic.", ">\n\nIs pooty poot about to attack poland?" ]

[ "probably stupid question. but are they putting hardware there and let polish operate it or they also putting their own crews?", ">\n\nTheir own crews. That's why they didn't trasfer the patriot to Ukraine after Poland first suggested it in their pr stunt, since it would have meant to deploy German forces in Ukraine.", ">\n\nA system yes, not a battery including crew...", ">\n\nPoland has never requested deploying German personnel to Ukraine... They insisted to supply battery which is happening after few weeks of histery created by German media. I am tired of strightening these idiotic statements on every corner. This has become ridicoulous. How Poland which only supplies hardware could request other country to send their troops to Ukraine? What twisted way of thinking it is? Or it is only defence mechanism to create chaos and blur point of case?\n^Germany will now \"join the United States in supplying an additional Patriot air defense battery to Ukraine,\" the White House announced.^ which is exactly what Poland said", ">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 66%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe Bundeswehr will begin the relocation of Patriot air defence systems into Poland's territory in the coming days following a deal that was agreed upon by Berlin and Warsaw last month.\nThe German offer to deploy Patriots in Poland was made after a missile explosion in Przewodów near the Polish border with Ukraine, which early investigations suggest was a stray Ukrainian air defence rocket.\nThe German Defence Ministry rejected the proposal, pointing out that the weapons are a part of an internal NATO air defence system and cannot be used outside the Alliance.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: defence^#1 Patriot^#2 system^#3 Poland^#4 Polish^#5", ">\n\nMan only 80 years ago the idea of Germany moving military equipment into Poland would have freaked folks the heck out bahaha", ">\n\nI bet some German troops are having some jokes going around, wish I could hear them", ">\n\nI dont think germans make many jokes about world war two", ">\n\nOh we do, but nust the light stuff, nothing to offensive we joke about italy during ww2", ">\n\nPerhaps I meant, I dont think germans make many jokes about the way world war two was started", ">\n\nGiven the limited range of the Patriots, they'll need quite a few more to cover the border.", ">\n\nThere’s a joke about the New England Patriots’ secondary in here somewhere.", ">\n\nThe Patriot Defense System has so many gaps, Buffalo returned two kick-off TDs in the same game against it.", ">\n\nYou. I like you.", ">\n\nIf Russia can sell oil through India, Germany can certainly donate anti air weapons through Poland in my book. Remember, Russia are actively targeting civilians with these weapons, still! Give them anti air!", ">\n\nGive them whatever is needed to stop Russia", ">\n\nNATO should bring down missiles in western Ukraine, because they threaten NATO airspace and lead to casualities", ">\n\nAfter the two that struck poland a while back, this is a legit thing that can be done.", ">\n\nIf enough batteries enter theater they can provide a good umbrella ADIZ/Area Denial coverage for fast movers to start launching from currently impossible areas.\nThis is what Im hopeful of, air power/combined arms will push things full-tilt for Ukraine.", ">\n\nLast time was a bit chaotic.", ">\n\nIs pooty poot about to attack poland?", ">\n\nPoland would kick the shit out of Russia in their own, so I doubt he would be dumb enough to do that." ]

[ "probably stupid question. but are they putting hardware there and let polish operate it or they also putting their own crews?", ">\n\nTheir own crews. That's why they didn't trasfer the patriot to Ukraine after Poland first suggested it in their pr stunt, since it would have meant to deploy German forces in Ukraine.", ">\n\nA system yes, not a battery including crew...", ">\n\nPoland has never requested deploying German personnel to Ukraine... They insisted to supply battery which is happening after few weeks of histery created by German media. I am tired of strightening these idiotic statements on every corner. This has become ridicoulous. How Poland which only supplies hardware could request other country to send their troops to Ukraine? What twisted way of thinking it is? Or it is only defence mechanism to create chaos and blur point of case?\n^Germany will now \"join the United States in supplying an additional Patriot air defense battery to Ukraine,\" the White House announced.^ which is exactly what Poland said", ">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 66%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe Bundeswehr will begin the relocation of Patriot air defence systems into Poland's territory in the coming days following a deal that was agreed upon by Berlin and Warsaw last month.\nThe German offer to deploy Patriots in Poland was made after a missile explosion in Przewodów near the Polish border with Ukraine, which early investigations suggest was a stray Ukrainian air defence rocket.\nThe German Defence Ministry rejected the proposal, pointing out that the weapons are a part of an internal NATO air defence system and cannot be used outside the Alliance.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: defence^#1 Patriot^#2 system^#3 Poland^#4 Polish^#5", ">\n\nMan only 80 years ago the idea of Germany moving military equipment into Poland would have freaked folks the heck out bahaha", ">\n\nI bet some German troops are having some jokes going around, wish I could hear them", ">\n\nI dont think germans make many jokes about world war two", ">\n\nOh we do, but nust the light stuff, nothing to offensive we joke about italy during ww2", ">\n\nPerhaps I meant, I dont think germans make many jokes about the way world war two was started", ">\n\nGiven the limited range of the Patriots, they'll need quite a few more to cover the border.", ">\n\nThere’s a joke about the New England Patriots’ secondary in here somewhere.", ">\n\nThe Patriot Defense System has so many gaps, Buffalo returned two kick-off TDs in the same game against it.", ">\n\nYou. I like you.", ">\n\nIf Russia can sell oil through India, Germany can certainly donate anti air weapons through Poland in my book. Remember, Russia are actively targeting civilians with these weapons, still! Give them anti air!", ">\n\nGive them whatever is needed to stop Russia", ">\n\nNATO should bring down missiles in western Ukraine, because they threaten NATO airspace and lead to casualities", ">\n\nAfter the two that struck poland a while back, this is a legit thing that can be done.", ">\n\nIf enough batteries enter theater they can provide a good umbrella ADIZ/Area Denial coverage for fast movers to start launching from currently impossible areas.\nThis is what Im hopeful of, air power/combined arms will push things full-tilt for Ukraine.", ">\n\nLast time was a bit chaotic.", ">\n\nIs pooty poot about to attack poland?", ">\n\nPoland would kick the shit out of Russia in their own, so I doubt he would be dumb enough to do that.", ">\n\nSo very likely then" ]

[ "probably stupid question. but are they putting hardware there and let polish operate it or they also putting their own crews?", ">\n\nTheir own crews. That's why they didn't trasfer the patriot to Ukraine after Poland first suggested it in their pr stunt, since it would have meant to deploy German forces in Ukraine.", ">\n\nA system yes, not a battery including crew...", ">\n\nPoland has never requested deploying German personnel to Ukraine... They insisted to supply battery which is happening after few weeks of histery created by German media. I am tired of strightening these idiotic statements on every corner. This has become ridicoulous. How Poland which only supplies hardware could request other country to send their troops to Ukraine? What twisted way of thinking it is? Or it is only defence mechanism to create chaos and blur point of case?\n^Germany will now \"join the United States in supplying an additional Patriot air defense battery to Ukraine,\" the White House announced.^ which is exactly what Poland said", ">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 66%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe Bundeswehr will begin the relocation of Patriot air defence systems into Poland's territory in the coming days following a deal that was agreed upon by Berlin and Warsaw last month.\nThe German offer to deploy Patriots in Poland was made after a missile explosion in Przewodów near the Polish border with Ukraine, which early investigations suggest was a stray Ukrainian air defence rocket.\nThe German Defence Ministry rejected the proposal, pointing out that the weapons are a part of an internal NATO air defence system and cannot be used outside the Alliance.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: defence^#1 Patriot^#2 system^#3 Poland^#4 Polish^#5", ">\n\nMan only 80 years ago the idea of Germany moving military equipment into Poland would have freaked folks the heck out bahaha", ">\n\nI bet some German troops are having some jokes going around, wish I could hear them", ">\n\nI dont think germans make many jokes about world war two", ">\n\nOh we do, but nust the light stuff, nothing to offensive we joke about italy during ww2", ">\n\nPerhaps I meant, I dont think germans make many jokes about the way world war two was started", ">\n\nGiven the limited range of the Patriots, they'll need quite a few more to cover the border.", ">\n\nThere’s a joke about the New England Patriots’ secondary in here somewhere.", ">\n\nThe Patriot Defense System has so many gaps, Buffalo returned two kick-off TDs in the same game against it.", ">\n\nYou. I like you.", ">\n\nIf Russia can sell oil through India, Germany can certainly donate anti air weapons through Poland in my book. Remember, Russia are actively targeting civilians with these weapons, still! Give them anti air!", ">\n\nGive them whatever is needed to stop Russia", ">\n\nNATO should bring down missiles in western Ukraine, because they threaten NATO airspace and lead to casualities", ">\n\nAfter the two that struck poland a while back, this is a legit thing that can be done.", ">\n\nIf enough batteries enter theater they can provide a good umbrella ADIZ/Area Denial coverage for fast movers to start launching from currently impossible areas.\nThis is what Im hopeful of, air power/combined arms will push things full-tilt for Ukraine.", ">\n\nLast time was a bit chaotic.", ">\n\nIs pooty poot about to attack poland?", ">\n\nPoland would kick the shit out of Russia in their own, so I doubt he would be dumb enough to do that.", ">\n\nSo very likely then", ">\n\nI've seen this bit from the discovery channel before..." ]

[ "probably stupid question. but are they putting hardware there and let polish operate it or they also putting their own crews?", ">\n\nTheir own crews. That's why they didn't trasfer the patriot to Ukraine after Poland first suggested it in their pr stunt, since it would have meant to deploy German forces in Ukraine.", ">\n\nA system yes, not a battery including crew...", ">\n\nPoland has never requested deploying German personnel to Ukraine... They insisted to supply battery which is happening after few weeks of histery created by German media. I am tired of strightening these idiotic statements on every corner. This has become ridicoulous. How Poland which only supplies hardware could request other country to send their troops to Ukraine? What twisted way of thinking it is? Or it is only defence mechanism to create chaos and blur point of case?\n^Germany will now \"join the United States in supplying an additional Patriot air defense battery to Ukraine,\" the White House announced.^ which is exactly what Poland said", ">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 66%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe Bundeswehr will begin the relocation of Patriot air defence systems into Poland's territory in the coming days following a deal that was agreed upon by Berlin and Warsaw last month.\nThe German offer to deploy Patriots in Poland was made after a missile explosion in Przewodów near the Polish border with Ukraine, which early investigations suggest was a stray Ukrainian air defence rocket.\nThe German Defence Ministry rejected the proposal, pointing out that the weapons are a part of an internal NATO air defence system and cannot be used outside the Alliance.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: defence^#1 Patriot^#2 system^#3 Poland^#4 Polish^#5", ">\n\nMan only 80 years ago the idea of Germany moving military equipment into Poland would have freaked folks the heck out bahaha", ">\n\nI bet some German troops are having some jokes going around, wish I could hear them", ">\n\nI dont think germans make many jokes about world war two", ">\n\nOh we do, but nust the light stuff, nothing to offensive we joke about italy during ww2", ">\n\nPerhaps I meant, I dont think germans make many jokes about the way world war two was started", ">\n\nGiven the limited range of the Patriots, they'll need quite a few more to cover the border.", ">\n\nThere’s a joke about the New England Patriots’ secondary in here somewhere.", ">\n\nThe Patriot Defense System has so many gaps, Buffalo returned two kick-off TDs in the same game against it.", ">\n\nYou. I like you.", ">\n\nIf Russia can sell oil through India, Germany can certainly donate anti air weapons through Poland in my book. Remember, Russia are actively targeting civilians with these weapons, still! Give them anti air!", ">\n\nGive them whatever is needed to stop Russia", ">\n\nNATO should bring down missiles in western Ukraine, because they threaten NATO airspace and lead to casualities", ">\n\nAfter the two that struck poland a while back, this is a legit thing that can be done.", ">\n\nIf enough batteries enter theater they can provide a good umbrella ADIZ/Area Denial coverage for fast movers to start launching from currently impossible areas.\nThis is what Im hopeful of, air power/combined arms will push things full-tilt for Ukraine.", ">\n\nLast time was a bit chaotic.", ">\n\nIs pooty poot about to attack poland?", ">\n\nPoland would kick the shit out of Russia in their own, so I doubt he would be dumb enough to do that.", ">\n\nSo very likely then", ">\n\nI've seen this bit from the discovery channel before...", ">\n\nGermans can not wait to take a shot at Russia" ]

[ "probably stupid question. but are they putting hardware there and let polish operate it or they also putting their own crews?", ">\n\nTheir own crews. That's why they didn't trasfer the patriot to Ukraine after Poland first suggested it in their pr stunt, since it would have meant to deploy German forces in Ukraine.", ">\n\nA system yes, not a battery including crew...", ">\n\nPoland has never requested deploying German personnel to Ukraine... They insisted to supply battery which is happening after few weeks of histery created by German media. I am tired of strightening these idiotic statements on every corner. This has become ridicoulous. How Poland which only supplies hardware could request other country to send their troops to Ukraine? What twisted way of thinking it is? Or it is only defence mechanism to create chaos and blur point of case?\n^Germany will now \"join the United States in supplying an additional Patriot air defense battery to Ukraine,\" the White House announced.^ which is exactly what Poland said", ">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 66%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe Bundeswehr will begin the relocation of Patriot air defence systems into Poland's territory in the coming days following a deal that was agreed upon by Berlin and Warsaw last month.\nThe German offer to deploy Patriots in Poland was made after a missile explosion in Przewodów near the Polish border with Ukraine, which early investigations suggest was a stray Ukrainian air defence rocket.\nThe German Defence Ministry rejected the proposal, pointing out that the weapons are a part of an internal NATO air defence system and cannot be used outside the Alliance.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: defence^#1 Patriot^#2 system^#3 Poland^#4 Polish^#5", ">\n\nMan only 80 years ago the idea of Germany moving military equipment into Poland would have freaked folks the heck out bahaha", ">\n\nI bet some German troops are having some jokes going around, wish I could hear them", ">\n\nI dont think germans make many jokes about world war two", ">\n\nOh we do, but nust the light stuff, nothing to offensive we joke about italy during ww2", ">\n\nPerhaps I meant, I dont think germans make many jokes about the way world war two was started", ">\n\nGiven the limited range of the Patriots, they'll need quite a few more to cover the border.", ">\n\nThere’s a joke about the New England Patriots’ secondary in here somewhere.", ">\n\nThe Patriot Defense System has so many gaps, Buffalo returned two kick-off TDs in the same game against it.", ">\n\nYou. I like you.", ">\n\nIf Russia can sell oil through India, Germany can certainly donate anti air weapons through Poland in my book. Remember, Russia are actively targeting civilians with these weapons, still! Give them anti air!", ">\n\nGive them whatever is needed to stop Russia", ">\n\nNATO should bring down missiles in western Ukraine, because they threaten NATO airspace and lead to casualities", ">\n\nAfter the two that struck poland a while back, this is a legit thing that can be done.", ">\n\nIf enough batteries enter theater they can provide a good umbrella ADIZ/Area Denial coverage for fast movers to start launching from currently impossible areas.\nThis is what Im hopeful of, air power/combined arms will push things full-tilt for Ukraine.", ">\n\nLast time was a bit chaotic.", ">\n\nIs pooty poot about to attack poland?", ">\n\nPoland would kick the shit out of Russia in their own, so I doubt he would be dumb enough to do that.", ">\n\nSo very likely then", ">\n\nI've seen this bit from the discovery channel before...", ">\n\nGermans can not wait to take a shot at Russia", ">\n\nGoing by recent history, this is more about shooting down stray missiles from both Ukraine & Russia." ]

[ "probably stupid question. but are they putting hardware there and let polish operate it or they also putting their own crews?", ">\n\nTheir own crews. That's why they didn't trasfer the patriot to Ukraine after Poland first suggested it in their pr stunt, since it would have meant to deploy German forces in Ukraine.", ">\n\nA system yes, not a battery including crew...", ">\n\nPoland has never requested deploying German personnel to Ukraine... They insisted to supply battery which is happening after few weeks of histery created by German media. I am tired of strightening these idiotic statements on every corner. This has become ridicoulous. How Poland which only supplies hardware could request other country to send their troops to Ukraine? What twisted way of thinking it is? Or it is only defence mechanism to create chaos and blur point of case?\n^Germany will now \"join the United States in supplying an additional Patriot air defense battery to Ukraine,\" the White House announced.^ which is exactly what Poland said", ">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 66%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe Bundeswehr will begin the relocation of Patriot air defence systems into Poland's territory in the coming days following a deal that was agreed upon by Berlin and Warsaw last month.\nThe German offer to deploy Patriots in Poland was made after a missile explosion in Przewodów near the Polish border with Ukraine, which early investigations suggest was a stray Ukrainian air defence rocket.\nThe German Defence Ministry rejected the proposal, pointing out that the weapons are a part of an internal NATO air defence system and cannot be used outside the Alliance.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: defence^#1 Patriot^#2 system^#3 Poland^#4 Polish^#5", ">\n\nMan only 80 years ago the idea of Germany moving military equipment into Poland would have freaked folks the heck out bahaha", ">\n\nI bet some German troops are having some jokes going around, wish I could hear them", ">\n\nI dont think germans make many jokes about world war two", ">\n\nOh we do, but nust the light stuff, nothing to offensive we joke about italy during ww2", ">\n\nPerhaps I meant, I dont think germans make many jokes about the way world war two was started", ">\n\nGiven the limited range of the Patriots, they'll need quite a few more to cover the border.", ">\n\nThere’s a joke about the New England Patriots’ secondary in here somewhere.", ">\n\nThe Patriot Defense System has so many gaps, Buffalo returned two kick-off TDs in the same game against it.", ">\n\nYou. I like you.", ">\n\nIf Russia can sell oil through India, Germany can certainly donate anti air weapons through Poland in my book. Remember, Russia are actively targeting civilians with these weapons, still! Give them anti air!", ">\n\nGive them whatever is needed to stop Russia", ">\n\nNATO should bring down missiles in western Ukraine, because they threaten NATO airspace and lead to casualities", ">\n\nAfter the two that struck poland a while back, this is a legit thing that can be done.", ">\n\nIf enough batteries enter theater they can provide a good umbrella ADIZ/Area Denial coverage for fast movers to start launching from currently impossible areas.\nThis is what Im hopeful of, air power/combined arms will push things full-tilt for Ukraine.", ">\n\nLast time was a bit chaotic.", ">\n\nIs pooty poot about to attack poland?", ">\n\nPoland would kick the shit out of Russia in their own, so I doubt he would be dumb enough to do that.", ">\n\nSo very likely then", ">\n\nI've seen this bit from the discovery channel before...", ">\n\nGermans can not wait to take a shot at Russia", ">\n\nGoing by recent history, this is more about shooting down stray missiles from both Ukraine & Russia.", ">\n\nWhat happened last time Germany moved military equipment into Poland?" ]

[ "probably stupid question. but are they putting hardware there and let polish operate it or they also putting their own crews?", ">\n\nTheir own crews. That's why they didn't trasfer the patriot to Ukraine after Poland first suggested it in their pr stunt, since it would have meant to deploy German forces in Ukraine.", ">\n\nA system yes, not a battery including crew...", ">\n\nPoland has never requested deploying German personnel to Ukraine... They insisted to supply battery which is happening after few weeks of histery created by German media. I am tired of strightening these idiotic statements on every corner. This has become ridicoulous. How Poland which only supplies hardware could request other country to send their troops to Ukraine? What twisted way of thinking it is? Or it is only defence mechanism to create chaos and blur point of case?\n^Germany will now \"join the United States in supplying an additional Patriot air defense battery to Ukraine,\" the White House announced.^ which is exactly what Poland said", ">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 66%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe Bundeswehr will begin the relocation of Patriot air defence systems into Poland's territory in the coming days following a deal that was agreed upon by Berlin and Warsaw last month.\nThe German offer to deploy Patriots in Poland was made after a missile explosion in Przewodów near the Polish border with Ukraine, which early investigations suggest was a stray Ukrainian air defence rocket.\nThe German Defence Ministry rejected the proposal, pointing out that the weapons are a part of an internal NATO air defence system and cannot be used outside the Alliance.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: defence^#1 Patriot^#2 system^#3 Poland^#4 Polish^#5", ">\n\nMan only 80 years ago the idea of Germany moving military equipment into Poland would have freaked folks the heck out bahaha", ">\n\nI bet some German troops are having some jokes going around, wish I could hear them", ">\n\nI dont think germans make many jokes about world war two", ">\n\nOh we do, but nust the light stuff, nothing to offensive we joke about italy during ww2", ">\n\nPerhaps I meant, I dont think germans make many jokes about the way world war two was started", ">\n\nGiven the limited range of the Patriots, they'll need quite a few more to cover the border.", ">\n\nThere’s a joke about the New England Patriots’ secondary in here somewhere.", ">\n\nThe Patriot Defense System has so many gaps, Buffalo returned two kick-off TDs in the same game against it.", ">\n\nYou. I like you.", ">\n\nIf Russia can sell oil through India, Germany can certainly donate anti air weapons through Poland in my book. Remember, Russia are actively targeting civilians with these weapons, still! Give them anti air!", ">\n\nGive them whatever is needed to stop Russia", ">\n\nNATO should bring down missiles in western Ukraine, because they threaten NATO airspace and lead to casualities", ">\n\nAfter the two that struck poland a while back, this is a legit thing that can be done.", ">\n\nIf enough batteries enter theater they can provide a good umbrella ADIZ/Area Denial coverage for fast movers to start launching from currently impossible areas.\nThis is what Im hopeful of, air power/combined arms will push things full-tilt for Ukraine.", ">\n\nLast time was a bit chaotic.", ">\n\nIs pooty poot about to attack poland?", ">\n\nPoland would kick the shit out of Russia in their own, so I doubt he would be dumb enough to do that.", ">\n\nSo very likely then", ">\n\nI've seen this bit from the discovery channel before...", ">\n\nGermans can not wait to take a shot at Russia", ">\n\nGoing by recent history, this is more about shooting down stray missiles from both Ukraine & Russia.", ">\n\nWhat happened last time Germany moved military equipment into Poland?", ">\n\nWhat NATO exercises are you referring to?" ]

[ "probably stupid question. but are they putting hardware there and let polish operate it or they also putting their own crews?", ">\n\nTheir own crews. That's why they didn't trasfer the patriot to Ukraine after Poland first suggested it in their pr stunt, since it would have meant to deploy German forces in Ukraine.", ">\n\nA system yes, not a battery including crew...", ">\n\nPoland has never requested deploying German personnel to Ukraine... They insisted to supply battery which is happening after few weeks of histery created by German media. I am tired of strightening these idiotic statements on every corner. This has become ridicoulous. How Poland which only supplies hardware could request other country to send their troops to Ukraine? What twisted way of thinking it is? Or it is only defence mechanism to create chaos and blur point of case?\n^Germany will now \"join the United States in supplying an additional Patriot air defense battery to Ukraine,\" the White House announced.^ which is exactly what Poland said", ">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 66%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe Bundeswehr will begin the relocation of Patriot air defence systems into Poland's territory in the coming days following a deal that was agreed upon by Berlin and Warsaw last month.\nThe German offer to deploy Patriots in Poland was made after a missile explosion in Przewodów near the Polish border with Ukraine, which early investigations suggest was a stray Ukrainian air defence rocket.\nThe German Defence Ministry rejected the proposal, pointing out that the weapons are a part of an internal NATO air defence system and cannot be used outside the Alliance.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: defence^#1 Patriot^#2 system^#3 Poland^#4 Polish^#5", ">\n\nMan only 80 years ago the idea of Germany moving military equipment into Poland would have freaked folks the heck out bahaha", ">\n\nI bet some German troops are having some jokes going around, wish I could hear them", ">\n\nI dont think germans make many jokes about world war two", ">\n\nOh we do, but nust the light stuff, nothing to offensive we joke about italy during ww2", ">\n\nPerhaps I meant, I dont think germans make many jokes about the way world war two was started", ">\n\nGiven the limited range of the Patriots, they'll need quite a few more to cover the border.", ">\n\nThere’s a joke about the New England Patriots’ secondary in here somewhere.", ">\n\nThe Patriot Defense System has so many gaps, Buffalo returned two kick-off TDs in the same game against it.", ">\n\nYou. I like you.", ">\n\nIf Russia can sell oil through India, Germany can certainly donate anti air weapons through Poland in my book. Remember, Russia are actively targeting civilians with these weapons, still! Give them anti air!", ">\n\nGive them whatever is needed to stop Russia", ">\n\nNATO should bring down missiles in western Ukraine, because they threaten NATO airspace and lead to casualities", ">\n\nAfter the two that struck poland a while back, this is a legit thing that can be done.", ">\n\nIf enough batteries enter theater they can provide a good umbrella ADIZ/Area Denial coverage for fast movers to start launching from currently impossible areas.\nThis is what Im hopeful of, air power/combined arms will push things full-tilt for Ukraine.", ">\n\nLast time was a bit chaotic.", ">\n\nIs pooty poot about to attack poland?", ">\n\nPoland would kick the shit out of Russia in their own, so I doubt he would be dumb enough to do that.", ">\n\nSo very likely then", ">\n\nI've seen this bit from the discovery channel before...", ">\n\nGermans can not wait to take a shot at Russia", ">\n\nGoing by recent history, this is more about shooting down stray missiles from both Ukraine & Russia.", ">\n\nWhat happened last time Germany moved military equipment into Poland?", ">\n\nWhat NATO exercises are you referring to?", ">\n\nWasn't that just a Special Military Operation or am I mixing up my Führers?" ]

[ "probably stupid question. but are they putting hardware there and let polish operate it or they also putting their own crews?", ">\n\nTheir own crews. That's why they didn't trasfer the patriot to Ukraine after Poland first suggested it in their pr stunt, since it would have meant to deploy German forces in Ukraine.", ">\n\nA system yes, not a battery including crew...", ">\n\nPoland has never requested deploying German personnel to Ukraine... They insisted to supply battery which is happening after few weeks of histery created by German media. I am tired of strightening these idiotic statements on every corner. This has become ridicoulous. How Poland which only supplies hardware could request other country to send their troops to Ukraine? What twisted way of thinking it is? Or it is only defence mechanism to create chaos and blur point of case?\n^Germany will now \"join the United States in supplying an additional Patriot air defense battery to Ukraine,\" the White House announced.^ which is exactly what Poland said", ">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 66%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe Bundeswehr will begin the relocation of Patriot air defence systems into Poland's territory in the coming days following a deal that was agreed upon by Berlin and Warsaw last month.\nThe German offer to deploy Patriots in Poland was made after a missile explosion in Przewodów near the Polish border with Ukraine, which early investigations suggest was a stray Ukrainian air defence rocket.\nThe German Defence Ministry rejected the proposal, pointing out that the weapons are a part of an internal NATO air defence system and cannot be used outside the Alliance.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: defence^#1 Patriot^#2 system^#3 Poland^#4 Polish^#5", ">\n\nMan only 80 years ago the idea of Germany moving military equipment into Poland would have freaked folks the heck out bahaha", ">\n\nI bet some German troops are having some jokes going around, wish I could hear them", ">\n\nI dont think germans make many jokes about world war two", ">\n\nOh we do, but nust the light stuff, nothing to offensive we joke about italy during ww2", ">\n\nPerhaps I meant, I dont think germans make many jokes about the way world war two was started", ">\n\nGiven the limited range of the Patriots, they'll need quite a few more to cover the border.", ">\n\nThere’s a joke about the New England Patriots’ secondary in here somewhere.", ">\n\nThe Patriot Defense System has so many gaps, Buffalo returned two kick-off TDs in the same game against it.", ">\n\nYou. I like you.", ">\n\nIf Russia can sell oil through India, Germany can certainly donate anti air weapons through Poland in my book. Remember, Russia are actively targeting civilians with these weapons, still! Give them anti air!", ">\n\nGive them whatever is needed to stop Russia", ">\n\nNATO should bring down missiles in western Ukraine, because they threaten NATO airspace and lead to casualities", ">\n\nAfter the two that struck poland a while back, this is a legit thing that can be done.", ">\n\nIf enough batteries enter theater they can provide a good umbrella ADIZ/Area Denial coverage for fast movers to start launching from currently impossible areas.\nThis is what Im hopeful of, air power/combined arms will push things full-tilt for Ukraine.", ">\n\nLast time was a bit chaotic.", ">\n\nIs pooty poot about to attack poland?", ">\n\nPoland would kick the shit out of Russia in their own, so I doubt he would be dumb enough to do that.", ">\n\nSo very likely then", ">\n\nI've seen this bit from the discovery channel before...", ">\n\nGermans can not wait to take a shot at Russia", ">\n\nGoing by recent history, this is more about shooting down stray missiles from both Ukraine & Russia.", ">\n\nWhat happened last time Germany moved military equipment into Poland?", ">\n\nWhat NATO exercises are you referring to?", ">\n\nWasn't that just a Special Military Operation or am I mixing up my Führers?", ">\n\nNot while moving miliitary equipment into poland from the west, only while moving military equipment from the east." ]

[ "probably stupid question. but are they putting hardware there and let polish operate it or they also putting their own crews?", ">\n\nTheir own crews. That's why they didn't trasfer the patriot to Ukraine after Poland first suggested it in their pr stunt, since it would have meant to deploy German forces in Ukraine.", ">\n\nA system yes, not a battery including crew...", ">\n\nPoland has never requested deploying German personnel to Ukraine... They insisted to supply battery which is happening after few weeks of histery created by German media. I am tired of strightening these idiotic statements on every corner. This has become ridicoulous. How Poland which only supplies hardware could request other country to send their troops to Ukraine? What twisted way of thinking it is? Or it is only defence mechanism to create chaos and blur point of case?\n^Germany will now \"join the United States in supplying an additional Patriot air defense battery to Ukraine,\" the White House announced.^ which is exactly what Poland said", ">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 66%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe Bundeswehr will begin the relocation of Patriot air defence systems into Poland's territory in the coming days following a deal that was agreed upon by Berlin and Warsaw last month.\nThe German offer to deploy Patriots in Poland was made after a missile explosion in Przewodów near the Polish border with Ukraine, which early investigations suggest was a stray Ukrainian air defence rocket.\nThe German Defence Ministry rejected the proposal, pointing out that the weapons are a part of an internal NATO air defence system and cannot be used outside the Alliance.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: defence^#1 Patriot^#2 system^#3 Poland^#4 Polish^#5", ">\n\nMan only 80 years ago the idea of Germany moving military equipment into Poland would have freaked folks the heck out bahaha", ">\n\nI bet some German troops are having some jokes going around, wish I could hear them", ">\n\nI dont think germans make many jokes about world war two", ">\n\nOh we do, but nust the light stuff, nothing to offensive we joke about italy during ww2", ">\n\nPerhaps I meant, I dont think germans make many jokes about the way world war two was started", ">\n\nGiven the limited range of the Patriots, they'll need quite a few more to cover the border.", ">\n\nThere’s a joke about the New England Patriots’ secondary in here somewhere.", ">\n\nThe Patriot Defense System has so many gaps, Buffalo returned two kick-off TDs in the same game against it.", ">\n\nYou. I like you.", ">\n\nIf Russia can sell oil through India, Germany can certainly donate anti air weapons through Poland in my book. Remember, Russia are actively targeting civilians with these weapons, still! Give them anti air!", ">\n\nGive them whatever is needed to stop Russia", ">\n\nNATO should bring down missiles in western Ukraine, because they threaten NATO airspace and lead to casualities", ">\n\nAfter the two that struck poland a while back, this is a legit thing that can be done.", ">\n\nIf enough batteries enter theater they can provide a good umbrella ADIZ/Area Denial coverage for fast movers to start launching from currently impossible areas.\nThis is what Im hopeful of, air power/combined arms will push things full-tilt for Ukraine.", ">\n\nLast time was a bit chaotic.", ">\n\nIs pooty poot about to attack poland?", ">\n\nPoland would kick the shit out of Russia in their own, so I doubt he would be dumb enough to do that.", ">\n\nSo very likely then", ">\n\nI've seen this bit from the discovery channel before...", ">\n\nGermans can not wait to take a shot at Russia", ">\n\nGoing by recent history, this is more about shooting down stray missiles from both Ukraine & Russia.", ">\n\nWhat happened last time Germany moved military equipment into Poland?", ">\n\nWhat NATO exercises are you referring to?", ">\n\nWasn't that just a Special Military Operation or am I mixing up my Führers?", ">\n\nNot while moving miliitary equipment into poland from the west, only while moving military equipment from the east.", ">\n\nIts because of stray missiles and nato countries supply other nato countries" ]

[ "probably stupid question. but are they putting hardware there and let polish operate it or they also putting their own crews?", ">\n\nTheir own crews. That's why they didn't trasfer the patriot to Ukraine after Poland first suggested it in their pr stunt, since it would have meant to deploy German forces in Ukraine.", ">\n\nA system yes, not a battery including crew...", ">\n\nPoland has never requested deploying German personnel to Ukraine... They insisted to supply battery which is happening after few weeks of histery created by German media. I am tired of strightening these idiotic statements on every corner. This has become ridicoulous. How Poland which only supplies hardware could request other country to send their troops to Ukraine? What twisted way of thinking it is? Or it is only defence mechanism to create chaos and blur point of case?\n^Germany will now \"join the United States in supplying an additional Patriot air defense battery to Ukraine,\" the White House announced.^ which is exactly what Poland said", ">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 66%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe Bundeswehr will begin the relocation of Patriot air defence systems into Poland's territory in the coming days following a deal that was agreed upon by Berlin and Warsaw last month.\nThe German offer to deploy Patriots in Poland was made after a missile explosion in Przewodów near the Polish border with Ukraine, which early investigations suggest was a stray Ukrainian air defence rocket.\nThe German Defence Ministry rejected the proposal, pointing out that the weapons are a part of an internal NATO air defence system and cannot be used outside the Alliance.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: defence^#1 Patriot^#2 system^#3 Poland^#4 Polish^#5", ">\n\nMan only 80 years ago the idea of Germany moving military equipment into Poland would have freaked folks the heck out bahaha", ">\n\nI bet some German troops are having some jokes going around, wish I could hear them", ">\n\nI dont think germans make many jokes about world war two", ">\n\nOh we do, but nust the light stuff, nothing to offensive we joke about italy during ww2", ">\n\nPerhaps I meant, I dont think germans make many jokes about the way world war two was started", ">\n\nGiven the limited range of the Patriots, they'll need quite a few more to cover the border.", ">\n\nThere’s a joke about the New England Patriots’ secondary in here somewhere.", ">\n\nThe Patriot Defense System has so many gaps, Buffalo returned two kick-off TDs in the same game against it.", ">\n\nYou. I like you.", ">\n\nIf Russia can sell oil through India, Germany can certainly donate anti air weapons through Poland in my book. Remember, Russia are actively targeting civilians with these weapons, still! Give them anti air!", ">\n\nGive them whatever is needed to stop Russia", ">\n\nNATO should bring down missiles in western Ukraine, because they threaten NATO airspace and lead to casualities", ">\n\nAfter the two that struck poland a while back, this is a legit thing that can be done.", ">\n\nIf enough batteries enter theater they can provide a good umbrella ADIZ/Area Denial coverage for fast movers to start launching from currently impossible areas.\nThis is what Im hopeful of, air power/combined arms will push things full-tilt for Ukraine.", ">\n\nLast time was a bit chaotic.", ">\n\nIs pooty poot about to attack poland?", ">\n\nPoland would kick the shit out of Russia in their own, so I doubt he would be dumb enough to do that.", ">\n\nSo very likely then", ">\n\nI've seen this bit from the discovery channel before...", ">\n\nGermans can not wait to take a shot at Russia", ">\n\nGoing by recent history, this is more about shooting down stray missiles from both Ukraine & Russia.", ">\n\nWhat happened last time Germany moved military equipment into Poland?", ">\n\nWhat NATO exercises are you referring to?", ">\n\nWasn't that just a Special Military Operation or am I mixing up my Führers?", ">\n\nNot while moving miliitary equipment into poland from the west, only while moving military equipment from the east.", ">\n\nIts because of stray missiles and nato countries supply other nato countries", ">\n\nRegular rotation, helping partners out or response to a threat? I know that they (NATO members) move personnel and equipment around for operational readiness, response and interoperability training, just curious as to if there is a \"credible threat\" reason. Either way.....fuck ruSSia, fuck Putin" ]

[ "probably stupid question. but are they putting hardware there and let polish operate it or they also putting their own crews?", ">\n\nTheir own crews. That's why they didn't trasfer the patriot to Ukraine after Poland first suggested it in their pr stunt, since it would have meant to deploy German forces in Ukraine.", ">\n\nA system yes, not a battery including crew...", ">\n\nPoland has never requested deploying German personnel to Ukraine... They insisted to supply battery which is happening after few weeks of histery created by German media. I am tired of strightening these idiotic statements on every corner. This has become ridicoulous. How Poland which only supplies hardware could request other country to send their troops to Ukraine? What twisted way of thinking it is? Or it is only defence mechanism to create chaos and blur point of case?\n^Germany will now \"join the United States in supplying an additional Patriot air defense battery to Ukraine,\" the White House announced.^ which is exactly what Poland said", ">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 66%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe Bundeswehr will begin the relocation of Patriot air defence systems into Poland's territory in the coming days following a deal that was agreed upon by Berlin and Warsaw last month.\nThe German offer to deploy Patriots in Poland was made after a missile explosion in Przewodów near the Polish border with Ukraine, which early investigations suggest was a stray Ukrainian air defence rocket.\nThe German Defence Ministry rejected the proposal, pointing out that the weapons are a part of an internal NATO air defence system and cannot be used outside the Alliance.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: defence^#1 Patriot^#2 system^#3 Poland^#4 Polish^#5", ">\n\nMan only 80 years ago the idea of Germany moving military equipment into Poland would have freaked folks the heck out bahaha", ">\n\nI bet some German troops are having some jokes going around, wish I could hear them", ">\n\nI dont think germans make many jokes about world war two", ">\n\nOh we do, but nust the light stuff, nothing to offensive we joke about italy during ww2", ">\n\nPerhaps I meant, I dont think germans make many jokes about the way world war two was started", ">\n\nGiven the limited range of the Patriots, they'll need quite a few more to cover the border.", ">\n\nThere’s a joke about the New England Patriots’ secondary in here somewhere.", ">\n\nThe Patriot Defense System has so many gaps, Buffalo returned two kick-off TDs in the same game against it.", ">\n\nYou. I like you.", ">\n\nIf Russia can sell oil through India, Germany can certainly donate anti air weapons through Poland in my book. Remember, Russia are actively targeting civilians with these weapons, still! Give them anti air!", ">\n\nGive them whatever is needed to stop Russia", ">\n\nNATO should bring down missiles in western Ukraine, because they threaten NATO airspace and lead to casualities", ">\n\nAfter the two that struck poland a while back, this is a legit thing that can be done.", ">\n\nIf enough batteries enter theater they can provide a good umbrella ADIZ/Area Denial coverage for fast movers to start launching from currently impossible areas.\nThis is what Im hopeful of, air power/combined arms will push things full-tilt for Ukraine.", ">\n\nLast time was a bit chaotic.", ">\n\nIs pooty poot about to attack poland?", ">\n\nPoland would kick the shit out of Russia in their own, so I doubt he would be dumb enough to do that.", ">\n\nSo very likely then", ">\n\nI've seen this bit from the discovery channel before...", ">\n\nGermans can not wait to take a shot at Russia", ">\n\nGoing by recent history, this is more about shooting down stray missiles from both Ukraine & Russia.", ">\n\nWhat happened last time Germany moved military equipment into Poland?", ">\n\nWhat NATO exercises are you referring to?", ">\n\nWasn't that just a Special Military Operation or am I mixing up my Führers?", ">\n\nNot while moving miliitary equipment into poland from the west, only while moving military equipment from the east.", ">\n\nIts because of stray missiles and nato countries supply other nato countries", ">\n\nRegular rotation, helping partners out or response to a threat? I know that they (NATO members) move personnel and equipment around for operational readiness, response and interoperability training, just curious as to if there is a \"credible threat\" reason. Either way.....fuck ruSSia, fuck Putin", ">\n\nRU is moving troops and weapons into Belarus. Poland - Ukraine must be ready for anything." ]

[ "probably stupid question. but are they putting hardware there and let polish operate it or they also putting their own crews?", ">\n\nTheir own crews. That's why they didn't trasfer the patriot to Ukraine after Poland first suggested it in their pr stunt, since it would have meant to deploy German forces in Ukraine.", ">\n\nA system yes, not a battery including crew...", ">\n\nPoland has never requested deploying German personnel to Ukraine... They insisted to supply battery which is happening after few weeks of histery created by German media. I am tired of strightening these idiotic statements on every corner. This has become ridicoulous. How Poland which only supplies hardware could request other country to send their troops to Ukraine? What twisted way of thinking it is? Or it is only defence mechanism to create chaos and blur point of case?\n^Germany will now \"join the United States in supplying an additional Patriot air defense battery to Ukraine,\" the White House announced.^ which is exactly what Poland said", ">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 66%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe Bundeswehr will begin the relocation of Patriot air defence systems into Poland's territory in the coming days following a deal that was agreed upon by Berlin and Warsaw last month.\nThe German offer to deploy Patriots in Poland was made after a missile explosion in Przewodów near the Polish border with Ukraine, which early investigations suggest was a stray Ukrainian air defence rocket.\nThe German Defence Ministry rejected the proposal, pointing out that the weapons are a part of an internal NATO air defence system and cannot be used outside the Alliance.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: defence^#1 Patriot^#2 system^#3 Poland^#4 Polish^#5", ">\n\nMan only 80 years ago the idea of Germany moving military equipment into Poland would have freaked folks the heck out bahaha", ">\n\nI bet some German troops are having some jokes going around, wish I could hear them", ">\n\nI dont think germans make many jokes about world war two", ">\n\nOh we do, but nust the light stuff, nothing to offensive we joke about italy during ww2", ">\n\nPerhaps I meant, I dont think germans make many jokes about the way world war two was started", ">\n\nGiven the limited range of the Patriots, they'll need quite a few more to cover the border.", ">\n\nThere’s a joke about the New England Patriots’ secondary in here somewhere.", ">\n\nThe Patriot Defense System has so many gaps, Buffalo returned two kick-off TDs in the same game against it.", ">\n\nYou. I like you.", ">\n\nIf Russia can sell oil through India, Germany can certainly donate anti air weapons through Poland in my book. Remember, Russia are actively targeting civilians with these weapons, still! Give them anti air!", ">\n\nGive them whatever is needed to stop Russia", ">\n\nNATO should bring down missiles in western Ukraine, because they threaten NATO airspace and lead to casualities", ">\n\nAfter the two that struck poland a while back, this is a legit thing that can be done.", ">\n\nIf enough batteries enter theater they can provide a good umbrella ADIZ/Area Denial coverage for fast movers to start launching from currently impossible areas.\nThis is what Im hopeful of, air power/combined arms will push things full-tilt for Ukraine.", ">\n\nLast time was a bit chaotic.", ">\n\nIs pooty poot about to attack poland?", ">\n\nPoland would kick the shit out of Russia in their own, so I doubt he would be dumb enough to do that.", ">\n\nSo very likely then", ">\n\nI've seen this bit from the discovery channel before...", ">\n\nGermans can not wait to take a shot at Russia", ">\n\nGoing by recent history, this is more about shooting down stray missiles from both Ukraine & Russia.", ">\n\nWhat happened last time Germany moved military equipment into Poland?", ">\n\nWhat NATO exercises are you referring to?", ">\n\nWasn't that just a Special Military Operation or am I mixing up my Führers?", ">\n\nNot while moving miliitary equipment into poland from the west, only while moving military equipment from the east.", ">\n\nIts because of stray missiles and nato countries supply other nato countries", ">\n\nRegular rotation, helping partners out or response to a threat? I know that they (NATO members) move personnel and equipment around for operational readiness, response and interoperability training, just curious as to if there is a \"credible threat\" reason. Either way.....fuck ruSSia, fuck Putin", ">\n\nRU is moving troops and weapons into Belarus. Poland - Ukraine must be ready for anything.", ">\n\nThe airport at Rzeszow, Poland, a city in the southeast of Poland, has several US patriot missile systems. A lot of Ukraine-related flights go in there, including international military cargo flights." ]

[ "probably stupid question. but are they putting hardware there and let polish operate it or they also putting their own crews?", ">\n\nTheir own crews. That's why they didn't trasfer the patriot to Ukraine after Poland first suggested it in their pr stunt, since it would have meant to deploy German forces in Ukraine.", ">\n\nA system yes, not a battery including crew...", ">\n\nPoland has never requested deploying German personnel to Ukraine... They insisted to supply battery which is happening after few weeks of histery created by German media. I am tired of strightening these idiotic statements on every corner. This has become ridicoulous. How Poland which only supplies hardware could request other country to send their troops to Ukraine? What twisted way of thinking it is? Or it is only defence mechanism to create chaos and blur point of case?\n^Germany will now \"join the United States in supplying an additional Patriot air defense battery to Ukraine,\" the White House announced.^ which is exactly what Poland said", ">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 66%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe Bundeswehr will begin the relocation of Patriot air defence systems into Poland's territory in the coming days following a deal that was agreed upon by Berlin and Warsaw last month.\nThe German offer to deploy Patriots in Poland was made after a missile explosion in Przewodów near the Polish border with Ukraine, which early investigations suggest was a stray Ukrainian air defence rocket.\nThe German Defence Ministry rejected the proposal, pointing out that the weapons are a part of an internal NATO air defence system and cannot be used outside the Alliance.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: defence^#1 Patriot^#2 system^#3 Poland^#4 Polish^#5", ">\n\nMan only 80 years ago the idea of Germany moving military equipment into Poland would have freaked folks the heck out bahaha", ">\n\nI bet some German troops are having some jokes going around, wish I could hear them", ">\n\nI dont think germans make many jokes about world war two", ">\n\nOh we do, but nust the light stuff, nothing to offensive we joke about italy during ww2", ">\n\nPerhaps I meant, I dont think germans make many jokes about the way world war two was started", ">\n\nGiven the limited range of the Patriots, they'll need quite a few more to cover the border.", ">\n\nThere’s a joke about the New England Patriots’ secondary in here somewhere.", ">\n\nThe Patriot Defense System has so many gaps, Buffalo returned two kick-off TDs in the same game against it.", ">\n\nYou. I like you.", ">\n\nIf Russia can sell oil through India, Germany can certainly donate anti air weapons through Poland in my book. Remember, Russia are actively targeting civilians with these weapons, still! Give them anti air!", ">\n\nGive them whatever is needed to stop Russia", ">\n\nNATO should bring down missiles in western Ukraine, because they threaten NATO airspace and lead to casualities", ">\n\nAfter the two that struck poland a while back, this is a legit thing that can be done.", ">\n\nIf enough batteries enter theater they can provide a good umbrella ADIZ/Area Denial coverage for fast movers to start launching from currently impossible areas.\nThis is what Im hopeful of, air power/combined arms will push things full-tilt for Ukraine.", ">\n\nLast time was a bit chaotic.", ">\n\nIs pooty poot about to attack poland?", ">\n\nPoland would kick the shit out of Russia in their own, so I doubt he would be dumb enough to do that.", ">\n\nSo very likely then", ">\n\nI've seen this bit from the discovery channel before...", ">\n\nGermans can not wait to take a shot at Russia", ">\n\nGoing by recent history, this is more about shooting down stray missiles from both Ukraine & Russia.", ">\n\nWhat happened last time Germany moved military equipment into Poland?", ">\n\nWhat NATO exercises are you referring to?", ">\n\nWasn't that just a Special Military Operation or am I mixing up my Führers?", ">\n\nNot while moving miliitary equipment into poland from the west, only while moving military equipment from the east.", ">\n\nIts because of stray missiles and nato countries supply other nato countries", ">\n\nRegular rotation, helping partners out or response to a threat? I know that they (NATO members) move personnel and equipment around for operational readiness, response and interoperability training, just curious as to if there is a \"credible threat\" reason. Either way.....fuck ruSSia, fuck Putin", ">\n\nRU is moving troops and weapons into Belarus. Poland - Ukraine must be ready for anything.", ">\n\nThe airport at Rzeszow, Poland, a city in the southeast of Poland, has several US patriot missile systems. A lot of Ukraine-related flights go in there, including international military cargo flights.", ">\n\nI support this. \nHowever, we must recognize this is our path to escalation. More NATO forces on Poland’s border = more chance for accidental engagement between the two powers. ( more likely to be Russian forces making the mistake)\nThen deterrence starts to unravel as the two powers escalate through the spectrum of conflict." ]

[ "probably stupid question. but are they putting hardware there and let polish operate it or they also putting their own crews?", ">\n\nTheir own crews. That's why they didn't trasfer the patriot to Ukraine after Poland first suggested it in their pr stunt, since it would have meant to deploy German forces in Ukraine.", ">\n\nA system yes, not a battery including crew...", ">\n\nPoland has never requested deploying German personnel to Ukraine... They insisted to supply battery which is happening after few weeks of histery created by German media. I am tired of strightening these idiotic statements on every corner. This has become ridicoulous. How Poland which only supplies hardware could request other country to send their troops to Ukraine? What twisted way of thinking it is? Or it is only defence mechanism to create chaos and blur point of case?\n^Germany will now \"join the United States in supplying an additional Patriot air defense battery to Ukraine,\" the White House announced.^ which is exactly what Poland said", ">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 66%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe Bundeswehr will begin the relocation of Patriot air defence systems into Poland's territory in the coming days following a deal that was agreed upon by Berlin and Warsaw last month.\nThe German offer to deploy Patriots in Poland was made after a missile explosion in Przewodów near the Polish border with Ukraine, which early investigations suggest was a stray Ukrainian air defence rocket.\nThe German Defence Ministry rejected the proposal, pointing out that the weapons are a part of an internal NATO air defence system and cannot be used outside the Alliance.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: defence^#1 Patriot^#2 system^#3 Poland^#4 Polish^#5", ">\n\nMan only 80 years ago the idea of Germany moving military equipment into Poland would have freaked folks the heck out bahaha", ">\n\nI bet some German troops are having some jokes going around, wish I could hear them", ">\n\nI dont think germans make many jokes about world war two", ">\n\nOh we do, but nust the light stuff, nothing to offensive we joke about italy during ww2", ">\n\nPerhaps I meant, I dont think germans make many jokes about the way world war two was started", ">\n\nGiven the limited range of the Patriots, they'll need quite a few more to cover the border.", ">\n\nThere’s a joke about the New England Patriots’ secondary in here somewhere.", ">\n\nThe Patriot Defense System has so many gaps, Buffalo returned two kick-off TDs in the same game against it.", ">\n\nYou. I like you.", ">\n\nIf Russia can sell oil through India, Germany can certainly donate anti air weapons through Poland in my book. Remember, Russia are actively targeting civilians with these weapons, still! Give them anti air!", ">\n\nGive them whatever is needed to stop Russia", ">\n\nNATO should bring down missiles in western Ukraine, because they threaten NATO airspace and lead to casualities", ">\n\nAfter the two that struck poland a while back, this is a legit thing that can be done.", ">\n\nIf enough batteries enter theater they can provide a good umbrella ADIZ/Area Denial coverage for fast movers to start launching from currently impossible areas.\nThis is what Im hopeful of, air power/combined arms will push things full-tilt for Ukraine.", ">\n\nLast time was a bit chaotic.", ">\n\nIs pooty poot about to attack poland?", ">\n\nPoland would kick the shit out of Russia in their own, so I doubt he would be dumb enough to do that.", ">\n\nSo very likely then", ">\n\nI've seen this bit from the discovery channel before...", ">\n\nGermans can not wait to take a shot at Russia", ">\n\nGoing by recent history, this is more about shooting down stray missiles from both Ukraine & Russia.", ">\n\nWhat happened last time Germany moved military equipment into Poland?", ">\n\nWhat NATO exercises are you referring to?", ">\n\nWasn't that just a Special Military Operation or am I mixing up my Führers?", ">\n\nNot while moving miliitary equipment into poland from the west, only while moving military equipment from the east.", ">\n\nIts because of stray missiles and nato countries supply other nato countries", ">\n\nRegular rotation, helping partners out or response to a threat? I know that they (NATO members) move personnel and equipment around for operational readiness, response and interoperability training, just curious as to if there is a \"credible threat\" reason. Either way.....fuck ruSSia, fuck Putin", ">\n\nRU is moving troops and weapons into Belarus. Poland - Ukraine must be ready for anything.", ">\n\nThe airport at Rzeszow, Poland, a city in the southeast of Poland, has several US patriot missile systems. A lot of Ukraine-related flights go in there, including international military cargo flights.", ">\n\nI support this. \nHowever, we must recognize this is our path to escalation. More NATO forces on Poland’s border = more chance for accidental engagement between the two powers. ( more likely to be Russian forces making the mistake)\nThen deterrence starts to unravel as the two powers escalate through the spectrum of conflict.", ">\n\nSo what do you suggest? Let countries invade others by force as long as they have nuclear weapons and let that be standard the world will live by in years to come? A recipe for chaos in my opinion." ]

[ "probably stupid question. but are they putting hardware there and let polish operate it or they also putting their own crews?", ">\n\nTheir own crews. That's why they didn't trasfer the patriot to Ukraine after Poland first suggested it in their pr stunt, since it would have meant to deploy German forces in Ukraine.", ">\n\nA system yes, not a battery including crew...", ">\n\nPoland has never requested deploying German personnel to Ukraine... They insisted to supply battery which is happening after few weeks of histery created by German media. I am tired of strightening these idiotic statements on every corner. This has become ridicoulous. How Poland which only supplies hardware could request other country to send their troops to Ukraine? What twisted way of thinking it is? Or it is only defence mechanism to create chaos and blur point of case?\n^Germany will now \"join the United States in supplying an additional Patriot air defense battery to Ukraine,\" the White House announced.^ which is exactly what Poland said", ">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 66%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe Bundeswehr will begin the relocation of Patriot air defence systems into Poland's territory in the coming days following a deal that was agreed upon by Berlin and Warsaw last month.\nThe German offer to deploy Patriots in Poland was made after a missile explosion in Przewodów near the Polish border with Ukraine, which early investigations suggest was a stray Ukrainian air defence rocket.\nThe German Defence Ministry rejected the proposal, pointing out that the weapons are a part of an internal NATO air defence system and cannot be used outside the Alliance.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: defence^#1 Patriot^#2 system^#3 Poland^#4 Polish^#5", ">\n\nMan only 80 years ago the idea of Germany moving military equipment into Poland would have freaked folks the heck out bahaha", ">\n\nI bet some German troops are having some jokes going around, wish I could hear them", ">\n\nI dont think germans make many jokes about world war two", ">\n\nOh we do, but nust the light stuff, nothing to offensive we joke about italy during ww2", ">\n\nPerhaps I meant, I dont think germans make many jokes about the way world war two was started", ">\n\nGiven the limited range of the Patriots, they'll need quite a few more to cover the border.", ">\n\nThere’s a joke about the New England Patriots’ secondary in here somewhere.", ">\n\nThe Patriot Defense System has so many gaps, Buffalo returned two kick-off TDs in the same game against it.", ">\n\nYou. I like you.", ">\n\nIf Russia can sell oil through India, Germany can certainly donate anti air weapons through Poland in my book. Remember, Russia are actively targeting civilians with these weapons, still! Give them anti air!", ">\n\nGive them whatever is needed to stop Russia", ">\n\nNATO should bring down missiles in western Ukraine, because they threaten NATO airspace and lead to casualities", ">\n\nAfter the two that struck poland a while back, this is a legit thing that can be done.", ">\n\nIf enough batteries enter theater they can provide a good umbrella ADIZ/Area Denial coverage for fast movers to start launching from currently impossible areas.\nThis is what Im hopeful of, air power/combined arms will push things full-tilt for Ukraine.", ">\n\nLast time was a bit chaotic.", ">\n\nIs pooty poot about to attack poland?", ">\n\nPoland would kick the shit out of Russia in their own, so I doubt he would be dumb enough to do that.", ">\n\nSo very likely then", ">\n\nI've seen this bit from the discovery channel before...", ">\n\nGermans can not wait to take a shot at Russia", ">\n\nGoing by recent history, this is more about shooting down stray missiles from both Ukraine & Russia.", ">\n\nWhat happened last time Germany moved military equipment into Poland?", ">\n\nWhat NATO exercises are you referring to?", ">\n\nWasn't that just a Special Military Operation or am I mixing up my Führers?", ">\n\nNot while moving miliitary equipment into poland from the west, only while moving military equipment from the east.", ">\n\nIts because of stray missiles and nato countries supply other nato countries", ">\n\nRegular rotation, helping partners out or response to a threat? I know that they (NATO members) move personnel and equipment around for operational readiness, response and interoperability training, just curious as to if there is a \"credible threat\" reason. Either way.....fuck ruSSia, fuck Putin", ">\n\nRU is moving troops and weapons into Belarus. Poland - Ukraine must be ready for anything.", ">\n\nThe airport at Rzeszow, Poland, a city in the southeast of Poland, has several US patriot missile systems. A lot of Ukraine-related flights go in there, including international military cargo flights.", ">\n\nI support this. \nHowever, we must recognize this is our path to escalation. More NATO forces on Poland’s border = more chance for accidental engagement between the two powers. ( more likely to be Russian forces making the mistake)\nThen deterrence starts to unravel as the two powers escalate through the spectrum of conflict.", ">\n\nSo what do you suggest? Let countries invade others by force as long as they have nuclear weapons and let that be standard the world will live by in years to come? A recipe for chaos in my opinion.", ">\n\nStraw man. \n“I support this” was my first line. \nI think NATO should do more. We just have to recognize and try to control for unintended escalation. There are lots of good policy articles and writings about escalation ladders to read that explain this in more detail." ]

[ "probably stupid question. but are they putting hardware there and let polish operate it or they also putting their own crews?", ">\n\nTheir own crews. That's why they didn't trasfer the patriot to Ukraine after Poland first suggested it in their pr stunt, since it would have meant to deploy German forces in Ukraine.", ">\n\nA system yes, not a battery including crew...", ">\n\nPoland has never requested deploying German personnel to Ukraine... They insisted to supply battery which is happening after few weeks of histery created by German media. I am tired of strightening these idiotic statements on every corner. This has become ridicoulous. How Poland which only supplies hardware could request other country to send their troops to Ukraine? What twisted way of thinking it is? Or it is only defence mechanism to create chaos and blur point of case?\n^Germany will now \"join the United States in supplying an additional Patriot air defense battery to Ukraine,\" the White House announced.^ which is exactly what Poland said", ">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 66%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe Bundeswehr will begin the relocation of Patriot air defence systems into Poland's territory in the coming days following a deal that was agreed upon by Berlin and Warsaw last month.\nThe German offer to deploy Patriots in Poland was made after a missile explosion in Przewodów near the Polish border with Ukraine, which early investigations suggest was a stray Ukrainian air defence rocket.\nThe German Defence Ministry rejected the proposal, pointing out that the weapons are a part of an internal NATO air defence system and cannot be used outside the Alliance.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: defence^#1 Patriot^#2 system^#3 Poland^#4 Polish^#5", ">\n\nMan only 80 years ago the idea of Germany moving military equipment into Poland would have freaked folks the heck out bahaha", ">\n\nI bet some German troops are having some jokes going around, wish I could hear them", ">\n\nI dont think germans make many jokes about world war two", ">\n\nOh we do, but nust the light stuff, nothing to offensive we joke about italy during ww2", ">\n\nPerhaps I meant, I dont think germans make many jokes about the way world war two was started", ">\n\nGiven the limited range of the Patriots, they'll need quite a few more to cover the border.", ">\n\nThere’s a joke about the New England Patriots’ secondary in here somewhere.", ">\n\nThe Patriot Defense System has so many gaps, Buffalo returned two kick-off TDs in the same game against it.", ">\n\nYou. I like you.", ">\n\nIf Russia can sell oil through India, Germany can certainly donate anti air weapons through Poland in my book. Remember, Russia are actively targeting civilians with these weapons, still! Give them anti air!", ">\n\nGive them whatever is needed to stop Russia", ">\n\nNATO should bring down missiles in western Ukraine, because they threaten NATO airspace and lead to casualities", ">\n\nAfter the two that struck poland a while back, this is a legit thing that can be done.", ">\n\nIf enough batteries enter theater they can provide a good umbrella ADIZ/Area Denial coverage for fast movers to start launching from currently impossible areas.\nThis is what Im hopeful of, air power/combined arms will push things full-tilt for Ukraine.", ">\n\nLast time was a bit chaotic.", ">\n\nIs pooty poot about to attack poland?", ">\n\nPoland would kick the shit out of Russia in their own, so I doubt he would be dumb enough to do that.", ">\n\nSo very likely then", ">\n\nI've seen this bit from the discovery channel before...", ">\n\nGermans can not wait to take a shot at Russia", ">\n\nGoing by recent history, this is more about shooting down stray missiles from both Ukraine & Russia.", ">\n\nWhat happened last time Germany moved military equipment into Poland?", ">\n\nWhat NATO exercises are you referring to?", ">\n\nWasn't that just a Special Military Operation or am I mixing up my Führers?", ">\n\nNot while moving miliitary equipment into poland from the west, only while moving military equipment from the east.", ">\n\nIts because of stray missiles and nato countries supply other nato countries", ">\n\nRegular rotation, helping partners out or response to a threat? I know that they (NATO members) move personnel and equipment around for operational readiness, response and interoperability training, just curious as to if there is a \"credible threat\" reason. Either way.....fuck ruSSia, fuck Putin", ">\n\nRU is moving troops and weapons into Belarus. Poland - Ukraine must be ready for anything.", ">\n\nThe airport at Rzeszow, Poland, a city in the southeast of Poland, has several US patriot missile systems. A lot of Ukraine-related flights go in there, including international military cargo flights.", ">\n\nI support this. \nHowever, we must recognize this is our path to escalation. More NATO forces on Poland’s border = more chance for accidental engagement between the two powers. ( more likely to be Russian forces making the mistake)\nThen deterrence starts to unravel as the two powers escalate through the spectrum of conflict.", ">\n\nSo what do you suggest? Let countries invade others by force as long as they have nuclear weapons and let that be standard the world will live by in years to come? A recipe for chaos in my opinion.", ">\n\nStraw man. \n“I support this” was my first line. \nI think NATO should do more. We just have to recognize and try to control for unintended escalation. There are lots of good policy articles and writings about escalation ladders to read that explain this in more detail.", ">\n\nSeems like you just have absolutely crystal clear messaging on what is and is not a target Ukraine/NATO will go after of Russia's. 1) Any unit on Ukrainian soil and 2) Any point of military attack onto Ukrainian soil." ]

[ "probably stupid question. but are they putting hardware there and let polish operate it or they also putting their own crews?", ">\n\nTheir own crews. That's why they didn't trasfer the patriot to Ukraine after Poland first suggested it in their pr stunt, since it would have meant to deploy German forces in Ukraine.", ">\n\nA system yes, not a battery including crew...", ">\n\nPoland has never requested deploying German personnel to Ukraine... They insisted to supply battery which is happening after few weeks of histery created by German media. I am tired of strightening these idiotic statements on every corner. This has become ridicoulous. How Poland which only supplies hardware could request other country to send their troops to Ukraine? What twisted way of thinking it is? Or it is only defence mechanism to create chaos and blur point of case?\n^Germany will now \"join the United States in supplying an additional Patriot air defense battery to Ukraine,\" the White House announced.^ which is exactly what Poland said", ">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 66%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe Bundeswehr will begin the relocation of Patriot air defence systems into Poland's territory in the coming days following a deal that was agreed upon by Berlin and Warsaw last month.\nThe German offer to deploy Patriots in Poland was made after a missile explosion in Przewodów near the Polish border with Ukraine, which early investigations suggest was a stray Ukrainian air defence rocket.\nThe German Defence Ministry rejected the proposal, pointing out that the weapons are a part of an internal NATO air defence system and cannot be used outside the Alliance.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: defence^#1 Patriot^#2 system^#3 Poland^#4 Polish^#5", ">\n\nMan only 80 years ago the idea of Germany moving military equipment into Poland would have freaked folks the heck out bahaha", ">\n\nI bet some German troops are having some jokes going around, wish I could hear them", ">\n\nI dont think germans make many jokes about world war two", ">\n\nOh we do, but nust the light stuff, nothing to offensive we joke about italy during ww2", ">\n\nPerhaps I meant, I dont think germans make many jokes about the way world war two was started", ">\n\nGiven the limited range of the Patriots, they'll need quite a few more to cover the border.", ">\n\nThere’s a joke about the New England Patriots’ secondary in here somewhere.", ">\n\nThe Patriot Defense System has so many gaps, Buffalo returned two kick-off TDs in the same game against it.", ">\n\nYou. I like you.", ">\n\nIf Russia can sell oil through India, Germany can certainly donate anti air weapons through Poland in my book. Remember, Russia are actively targeting civilians with these weapons, still! Give them anti air!", ">\n\nGive them whatever is needed to stop Russia", ">\n\nNATO should bring down missiles in western Ukraine, because they threaten NATO airspace and lead to casualities", ">\n\nAfter the two that struck poland a while back, this is a legit thing that can be done.", ">\n\nIf enough batteries enter theater they can provide a good umbrella ADIZ/Area Denial coverage for fast movers to start launching from currently impossible areas.\nThis is what Im hopeful of, air power/combined arms will push things full-tilt for Ukraine.", ">\n\nLast time was a bit chaotic.", ">\n\nIs pooty poot about to attack poland?", ">\n\nPoland would kick the shit out of Russia in their own, so I doubt he would be dumb enough to do that.", ">\n\nSo very likely then", ">\n\nI've seen this bit from the discovery channel before...", ">\n\nGermans can not wait to take a shot at Russia", ">\n\nGoing by recent history, this is more about shooting down stray missiles from both Ukraine & Russia.", ">\n\nWhat happened last time Germany moved military equipment into Poland?", ">\n\nWhat NATO exercises are you referring to?", ">\n\nWasn't that just a Special Military Operation or am I mixing up my Führers?", ">\n\nNot while moving miliitary equipment into poland from the west, only while moving military equipment from the east.", ">\n\nIts because of stray missiles and nato countries supply other nato countries", ">\n\nRegular rotation, helping partners out or response to a threat? I know that they (NATO members) move personnel and equipment around for operational readiness, response and interoperability training, just curious as to if there is a \"credible threat\" reason. Either way.....fuck ruSSia, fuck Putin", ">\n\nRU is moving troops and weapons into Belarus. Poland - Ukraine must be ready for anything.", ">\n\nThe airport at Rzeszow, Poland, a city in the southeast of Poland, has several US patriot missile systems. A lot of Ukraine-related flights go in there, including international military cargo flights.", ">\n\nI support this. \nHowever, we must recognize this is our path to escalation. More NATO forces on Poland’s border = more chance for accidental engagement between the two powers. ( more likely to be Russian forces making the mistake)\nThen deterrence starts to unravel as the two powers escalate through the spectrum of conflict.", ">\n\nSo what do you suggest? Let countries invade others by force as long as they have nuclear weapons and let that be standard the world will live by in years to come? A recipe for chaos in my opinion.", ">\n\nStraw man. \n“I support this” was my first line. \nI think NATO should do more. We just have to recognize and try to control for unintended escalation. There are lots of good policy articles and writings about escalation ladders to read that explain this in more detail.", ">\n\nSeems like you just have absolutely crystal clear messaging on what is and is not a target Ukraine/NATO will go after of Russia's. 1) Any unit on Ukrainian soil and 2) Any point of military attack onto Ukrainian soil.", ">\n\nStraw man with an ad hominem bonus." ]

[ "probably stupid question. but are they putting hardware there and let polish operate it or they also putting their own crews?", ">\n\nTheir own crews. That's why they didn't trasfer the patriot to Ukraine after Poland first suggested it in their pr stunt, since it would have meant to deploy German forces in Ukraine.", ">\n\nA system yes, not a battery including crew...", ">\n\nPoland has never requested deploying German personnel to Ukraine... They insisted to supply battery which is happening after few weeks of histery created by German media. I am tired of strightening these idiotic statements on every corner. This has become ridicoulous. How Poland which only supplies hardware could request other country to send their troops to Ukraine? What twisted way of thinking it is? Or it is only defence mechanism to create chaos and blur point of case?\n^Germany will now \"join the United States in supplying an additional Patriot air defense battery to Ukraine,\" the White House announced.^ which is exactly what Poland said", ">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 66%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe Bundeswehr will begin the relocation of Patriot air defence systems into Poland's territory in the coming days following a deal that was agreed upon by Berlin and Warsaw last month.\nThe German offer to deploy Patriots in Poland was made after a missile explosion in Przewodów near the Polish border with Ukraine, which early investigations suggest was a stray Ukrainian air defence rocket.\nThe German Defence Ministry rejected the proposal, pointing out that the weapons are a part of an internal NATO air defence system and cannot be used outside the Alliance.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: defence^#1 Patriot^#2 system^#3 Poland^#4 Polish^#5", ">\n\nMan only 80 years ago the idea of Germany moving military equipment into Poland would have freaked folks the heck out bahaha", ">\n\nI bet some German troops are having some jokes going around, wish I could hear them", ">\n\nI dont think germans make many jokes about world war two", ">\n\nOh we do, but nust the light stuff, nothing to offensive we joke about italy during ww2", ">\n\nPerhaps I meant, I dont think germans make many jokes about the way world war two was started", ">\n\nGiven the limited range of the Patriots, they'll need quite a few more to cover the border.", ">\n\nThere’s a joke about the New England Patriots’ secondary in here somewhere.", ">\n\nThe Patriot Defense System has so many gaps, Buffalo returned two kick-off TDs in the same game against it.", ">\n\nYou. I like you.", ">\n\nIf Russia can sell oil through India, Germany can certainly donate anti air weapons through Poland in my book. Remember, Russia are actively targeting civilians with these weapons, still! Give them anti air!", ">\n\nGive them whatever is needed to stop Russia", ">\n\nNATO should bring down missiles in western Ukraine, because they threaten NATO airspace and lead to casualities", ">\n\nAfter the two that struck poland a while back, this is a legit thing that can be done.", ">\n\nIf enough batteries enter theater they can provide a good umbrella ADIZ/Area Denial coverage for fast movers to start launching from currently impossible areas.\nThis is what Im hopeful of, air power/combined arms will push things full-tilt for Ukraine.", ">\n\nLast time was a bit chaotic.", ">\n\nIs pooty poot about to attack poland?", ">\n\nPoland would kick the shit out of Russia in their own, so I doubt he would be dumb enough to do that.", ">\n\nSo very likely then", ">\n\nI've seen this bit from the discovery channel before...", ">\n\nGermans can not wait to take a shot at Russia", ">\n\nGoing by recent history, this is more about shooting down stray missiles from both Ukraine & Russia.", ">\n\nWhat happened last time Germany moved military equipment into Poland?", ">\n\nWhat NATO exercises are you referring to?", ">\n\nWasn't that just a Special Military Operation or am I mixing up my Führers?", ">\n\nNot while moving miliitary equipment into poland from the west, only while moving military equipment from the east.", ">\n\nIts because of stray missiles and nato countries supply other nato countries", ">\n\nRegular rotation, helping partners out or response to a threat? I know that they (NATO members) move personnel and equipment around for operational readiness, response and interoperability training, just curious as to if there is a \"credible threat\" reason. Either way.....fuck ruSSia, fuck Putin", ">\n\nRU is moving troops and weapons into Belarus. Poland - Ukraine must be ready for anything.", ">\n\nThe airport at Rzeszow, Poland, a city in the southeast of Poland, has several US patriot missile systems. A lot of Ukraine-related flights go in there, including international military cargo flights.", ">\n\nI support this. \nHowever, we must recognize this is our path to escalation. More NATO forces on Poland’s border = more chance for accidental engagement between the two powers. ( more likely to be Russian forces making the mistake)\nThen deterrence starts to unravel as the two powers escalate through the spectrum of conflict.", ">\n\nSo what do you suggest? Let countries invade others by force as long as they have nuclear weapons and let that be standard the world will live by in years to come? A recipe for chaos in my opinion.", ">\n\nStraw man. \n“I support this” was my first line. \nI think NATO should do more. We just have to recognize and try to control for unintended escalation. There are lots of good policy articles and writings about escalation ladders to read that explain this in more detail.", ">\n\nSeems like you just have absolutely crystal clear messaging on what is and is not a target Ukraine/NATO will go after of Russia's. 1) Any unit on Ukrainian soil and 2) Any point of military attack onto Ukrainian soil.", ">\n\nStraw man with an ad hominem bonus.", ">\n\nMy dude keep in mind Russia is internally and internationally touting and western weapons supply as \"NATO aggressive expansion and a justified existencial threat to Russia\"\nTheir are telling their own that this war is a defensive one, over and over to themselves and the entire world. For almost 11 months." ]

[ "probably stupid question. but are they putting hardware there and let polish operate it or they also putting their own crews?", ">\n\nTheir own crews. That's why they didn't trasfer the patriot to Ukraine after Poland first suggested it in their pr stunt, since it would have meant to deploy German forces in Ukraine.", ">\n\nA system yes, not a battery including crew...", ">\n\nPoland has never requested deploying German personnel to Ukraine... They insisted to supply battery which is happening after few weeks of histery created by German media. I am tired of strightening these idiotic statements on every corner. This has become ridicoulous. How Poland which only supplies hardware could request other country to send their troops to Ukraine? What twisted way of thinking it is? Or it is only defence mechanism to create chaos and blur point of case?\n^Germany will now \"join the United States in supplying an additional Patriot air defense battery to Ukraine,\" the White House announced.^ which is exactly what Poland said", ">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 66%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe Bundeswehr will begin the relocation of Patriot air defence systems into Poland's territory in the coming days following a deal that was agreed upon by Berlin and Warsaw last month.\nThe German offer to deploy Patriots in Poland was made after a missile explosion in Przewodów near the Polish border with Ukraine, which early investigations suggest was a stray Ukrainian air defence rocket.\nThe German Defence Ministry rejected the proposal, pointing out that the weapons are a part of an internal NATO air defence system and cannot be used outside the Alliance.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: defence^#1 Patriot^#2 system^#3 Poland^#4 Polish^#5", ">\n\nMan only 80 years ago the idea of Germany moving military equipment into Poland would have freaked folks the heck out bahaha", ">\n\nI bet some German troops are having some jokes going around, wish I could hear them", ">\n\nI dont think germans make many jokes about world war two", ">\n\nOh we do, but nust the light stuff, nothing to offensive we joke about italy during ww2", ">\n\nPerhaps I meant, I dont think germans make many jokes about the way world war two was started", ">\n\nGiven the limited range of the Patriots, they'll need quite a few more to cover the border.", ">\n\nThere’s a joke about the New England Patriots’ secondary in here somewhere.", ">\n\nThe Patriot Defense System has so many gaps, Buffalo returned two kick-off TDs in the same game against it.", ">\n\nYou. I like you.", ">\n\nIf Russia can sell oil through India, Germany can certainly donate anti air weapons through Poland in my book. Remember, Russia are actively targeting civilians with these weapons, still! Give them anti air!", ">\n\nGive them whatever is needed to stop Russia", ">\n\nNATO should bring down missiles in western Ukraine, because they threaten NATO airspace and lead to casualities", ">\n\nAfter the two that struck poland a while back, this is a legit thing that can be done.", ">\n\nIf enough batteries enter theater they can provide a good umbrella ADIZ/Area Denial coverage for fast movers to start launching from currently impossible areas.\nThis is what Im hopeful of, air power/combined arms will push things full-tilt for Ukraine.", ">\n\nLast time was a bit chaotic.", ">\n\nIs pooty poot about to attack poland?", ">\n\nPoland would kick the shit out of Russia in their own, so I doubt he would be dumb enough to do that.", ">\n\nSo very likely then", ">\n\nI've seen this bit from the discovery channel before...", ">\n\nGermans can not wait to take a shot at Russia", ">\n\nGoing by recent history, this is more about shooting down stray missiles from both Ukraine & Russia.", ">\n\nWhat happened last time Germany moved military equipment into Poland?", ">\n\nWhat NATO exercises are you referring to?", ">\n\nWasn't that just a Special Military Operation or am I mixing up my Führers?", ">\n\nNot while moving miliitary equipment into poland from the west, only while moving military equipment from the east.", ">\n\nIts because of stray missiles and nato countries supply other nato countries", ">\n\nRegular rotation, helping partners out or response to a threat? I know that they (NATO members) move personnel and equipment around for operational readiness, response and interoperability training, just curious as to if there is a \"credible threat\" reason. Either way.....fuck ruSSia, fuck Putin", ">\n\nRU is moving troops and weapons into Belarus. Poland - Ukraine must be ready for anything.", ">\n\nThe airport at Rzeszow, Poland, a city in the southeast of Poland, has several US patriot missile systems. A lot of Ukraine-related flights go in there, including international military cargo flights.", ">\n\nI support this. \nHowever, we must recognize this is our path to escalation. More NATO forces on Poland’s border = more chance for accidental engagement between the two powers. ( more likely to be Russian forces making the mistake)\nThen deterrence starts to unravel as the two powers escalate through the spectrum of conflict.", ">\n\nSo what do you suggest? Let countries invade others by force as long as they have nuclear weapons and let that be standard the world will live by in years to come? A recipe for chaos in my opinion.", ">\n\nStraw man. \n“I support this” was my first line. \nI think NATO should do more. We just have to recognize and try to control for unintended escalation. There are lots of good policy articles and writings about escalation ladders to read that explain this in more detail.", ">\n\nSeems like you just have absolutely crystal clear messaging on what is and is not a target Ukraine/NATO will go after of Russia's. 1) Any unit on Ukrainian soil and 2) Any point of military attack onto Ukrainian soil.", ">\n\nStraw man with an ad hominem bonus.", ">\n\nMy dude keep in mind Russia is internally and internationally touting and western weapons supply as \"NATO aggressive expansion and a justified existencial threat to Russia\"\nTheir are telling their own that this war is a defensive one, over and over to themselves and the entire world. For almost 11 months.", ">\n\nCorrect. \nPer Russian Doctrine, if they categorize the conflict as regional the Russian Doctrine opens up many more options for weapons employment by Russia. It’s like Russia has been preparing for escalation for 11 months, they just need a good reason." ]

[ "probably stupid question. but are they putting hardware there and let polish operate it or they also putting their own crews?", ">\n\nTheir own crews. That's why they didn't trasfer the patriot to Ukraine after Poland first suggested it in their pr stunt, since it would have meant to deploy German forces in Ukraine.", ">\n\nA system yes, not a battery including crew...", ">\n\nPoland has never requested deploying German personnel to Ukraine... They insisted to supply battery which is happening after few weeks of histery created by German media. I am tired of strightening these idiotic statements on every corner. This has become ridicoulous. How Poland which only supplies hardware could request other country to send their troops to Ukraine? What twisted way of thinking it is? Or it is only defence mechanism to create chaos and blur point of case?\n^Germany will now \"join the United States in supplying an additional Patriot air defense battery to Ukraine,\" the White House announced.^ which is exactly what Poland said", ">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 66%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe Bundeswehr will begin the relocation of Patriot air defence systems into Poland's territory in the coming days following a deal that was agreed upon by Berlin and Warsaw last month.\nThe German offer to deploy Patriots in Poland was made after a missile explosion in Przewodów near the Polish border with Ukraine, which early investigations suggest was a stray Ukrainian air defence rocket.\nThe German Defence Ministry rejected the proposal, pointing out that the weapons are a part of an internal NATO air defence system and cannot be used outside the Alliance.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: defence^#1 Patriot^#2 system^#3 Poland^#4 Polish^#5", ">\n\nMan only 80 years ago the idea of Germany moving military equipment into Poland would have freaked folks the heck out bahaha", ">\n\nI bet some German troops are having some jokes going around, wish I could hear them", ">\n\nI dont think germans make many jokes about world war two", ">\n\nOh we do, but nust the light stuff, nothing to offensive we joke about italy during ww2", ">\n\nPerhaps I meant, I dont think germans make many jokes about the way world war two was started", ">\n\nGiven the limited range of the Patriots, they'll need quite a few more to cover the border.", ">\n\nThere’s a joke about the New England Patriots’ secondary in here somewhere.", ">\n\nThe Patriot Defense System has so many gaps, Buffalo returned two kick-off TDs in the same game against it.", ">\n\nYou. I like you.", ">\n\nIf Russia can sell oil through India, Germany can certainly donate anti air weapons through Poland in my book. Remember, Russia are actively targeting civilians with these weapons, still! Give them anti air!", ">\n\nGive them whatever is needed to stop Russia", ">\n\nNATO should bring down missiles in western Ukraine, because they threaten NATO airspace and lead to casualities", ">\n\nAfter the two that struck poland a while back, this is a legit thing that can be done.", ">\n\nIf enough batteries enter theater they can provide a good umbrella ADIZ/Area Denial coverage for fast movers to start launching from currently impossible areas.\nThis is what Im hopeful of, air power/combined arms will push things full-tilt for Ukraine.", ">\n\nLast time was a bit chaotic.", ">\n\nIs pooty poot about to attack poland?", ">\n\nPoland would kick the shit out of Russia in their own, so I doubt he would be dumb enough to do that.", ">\n\nSo very likely then", ">\n\nI've seen this bit from the discovery channel before...", ">\n\nGermans can not wait to take a shot at Russia", ">\n\nGoing by recent history, this is more about shooting down stray missiles from both Ukraine & Russia.", ">\n\nWhat happened last time Germany moved military equipment into Poland?", ">\n\nWhat NATO exercises are you referring to?", ">\n\nWasn't that just a Special Military Operation or am I mixing up my Führers?", ">\n\nNot while moving miliitary equipment into poland from the west, only while moving military equipment from the east.", ">\n\nIts because of stray missiles and nato countries supply other nato countries", ">\n\nRegular rotation, helping partners out or response to a threat? I know that they (NATO members) move personnel and equipment around for operational readiness, response and interoperability training, just curious as to if there is a \"credible threat\" reason. Either way.....fuck ruSSia, fuck Putin", ">\n\nRU is moving troops and weapons into Belarus. Poland - Ukraine must be ready for anything.", ">\n\nThe airport at Rzeszow, Poland, a city in the southeast of Poland, has several US patriot missile systems. A lot of Ukraine-related flights go in there, including international military cargo flights.", ">\n\nI support this. \nHowever, we must recognize this is our path to escalation. More NATO forces on Poland’s border = more chance for accidental engagement between the two powers. ( more likely to be Russian forces making the mistake)\nThen deterrence starts to unravel as the two powers escalate through the spectrum of conflict.", ">\n\nSo what do you suggest? Let countries invade others by force as long as they have nuclear weapons and let that be standard the world will live by in years to come? A recipe for chaos in my opinion.", ">\n\nStraw man. \n“I support this” was my first line. \nI think NATO should do more. We just have to recognize and try to control for unintended escalation. There are lots of good policy articles and writings about escalation ladders to read that explain this in more detail.", ">\n\nSeems like you just have absolutely crystal clear messaging on what is and is not a target Ukraine/NATO will go after of Russia's. 1) Any unit on Ukrainian soil and 2) Any point of military attack onto Ukrainian soil.", ">\n\nStraw man with an ad hominem bonus.", ">\n\nMy dude keep in mind Russia is internally and internationally touting and western weapons supply as \"NATO aggressive expansion and a justified existencial threat to Russia\"\nTheir are telling their own that this war is a defensive one, over and over to themselves and the entire world. For almost 11 months.", ">\n\nCorrect. \nPer Russian Doctrine, if they categorize the conflict as regional the Russian Doctrine opens up many more options for weapons employment by Russia. It’s like Russia has been preparing for escalation for 11 months, they just need a good reason.", ">\n\nExactly. Putin would probably love if Ukraine attacked Moscow proper so he could use it to drum up nationalistic support for his war of choice. So far they are playing it smart by sticking to military targets pretty directly related to Russia's invasion." ]

[ "probably stupid question. but are they putting hardware there and let polish operate it or they also putting their own crews?", ">\n\nTheir own crews. That's why they didn't trasfer the patriot to Ukraine after Poland first suggested it in their pr stunt, since it would have meant to deploy German forces in Ukraine.", ">\n\nA system yes, not a battery including crew...", ">\n\nPoland has never requested deploying German personnel to Ukraine... They insisted to supply battery which is happening after few weeks of histery created by German media. I am tired of strightening these idiotic statements on every corner. This has become ridicoulous. How Poland which only supplies hardware could request other country to send their troops to Ukraine? What twisted way of thinking it is? Or it is only defence mechanism to create chaos and blur point of case?\n^Germany will now \"join the United States in supplying an additional Patriot air defense battery to Ukraine,\" the White House announced.^ which is exactly what Poland said", ">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 66%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe Bundeswehr will begin the relocation of Patriot air defence systems into Poland's territory in the coming days following a deal that was agreed upon by Berlin and Warsaw last month.\nThe German offer to deploy Patriots in Poland was made after a missile explosion in Przewodów near the Polish border with Ukraine, which early investigations suggest was a stray Ukrainian air defence rocket.\nThe German Defence Ministry rejected the proposal, pointing out that the weapons are a part of an internal NATO air defence system and cannot be used outside the Alliance.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: defence^#1 Patriot^#2 system^#3 Poland^#4 Polish^#5", ">\n\nMan only 80 years ago the idea of Germany moving military equipment into Poland would have freaked folks the heck out bahaha", ">\n\nI bet some German troops are having some jokes going around, wish I could hear them", ">\n\nI dont think germans make many jokes about world war two", ">\n\nOh we do, but nust the light stuff, nothing to offensive we joke about italy during ww2", ">\n\nPerhaps I meant, I dont think germans make many jokes about the way world war two was started", ">\n\nGiven the limited range of the Patriots, they'll need quite a few more to cover the border.", ">\n\nThere’s a joke about the New England Patriots’ secondary in here somewhere.", ">\n\nThe Patriot Defense System has so many gaps, Buffalo returned two kick-off TDs in the same game against it.", ">\n\nYou. I like you.", ">\n\nIf Russia can sell oil through India, Germany can certainly donate anti air weapons through Poland in my book. Remember, Russia are actively targeting civilians with these weapons, still! Give them anti air!", ">\n\nGive them whatever is needed to stop Russia", ">\n\nNATO should bring down missiles in western Ukraine, because they threaten NATO airspace and lead to casualities", ">\n\nAfter the two that struck poland a while back, this is a legit thing that can be done.", ">\n\nIf enough batteries enter theater they can provide a good umbrella ADIZ/Area Denial coverage for fast movers to start launching from currently impossible areas.\nThis is what Im hopeful of, air power/combined arms will push things full-tilt for Ukraine.", ">\n\nLast time was a bit chaotic.", ">\n\nIs pooty poot about to attack poland?", ">\n\nPoland would kick the shit out of Russia in their own, so I doubt he would be dumb enough to do that.", ">\n\nSo very likely then", ">\n\nI've seen this bit from the discovery channel before...", ">\n\nGermans can not wait to take a shot at Russia", ">\n\nGoing by recent history, this is more about shooting down stray missiles from both Ukraine & Russia.", ">\n\nWhat happened last time Germany moved military equipment into Poland?", ">\n\nWhat NATO exercises are you referring to?", ">\n\nWasn't that just a Special Military Operation or am I mixing up my Führers?", ">\n\nNot while moving miliitary equipment into poland from the west, only while moving military equipment from the east.", ">\n\nIts because of stray missiles and nato countries supply other nato countries", ">\n\nRegular rotation, helping partners out or response to a threat? I know that they (NATO members) move personnel and equipment around for operational readiness, response and interoperability training, just curious as to if there is a \"credible threat\" reason. Either way.....fuck ruSSia, fuck Putin", ">\n\nRU is moving troops and weapons into Belarus. Poland - Ukraine must be ready for anything.", ">\n\nThe airport at Rzeszow, Poland, a city in the southeast of Poland, has several US patriot missile systems. A lot of Ukraine-related flights go in there, including international military cargo flights.", ">\n\nI support this. \nHowever, we must recognize this is our path to escalation. More NATO forces on Poland’s border = more chance for accidental engagement between the two powers. ( more likely to be Russian forces making the mistake)\nThen deterrence starts to unravel as the two powers escalate through the spectrum of conflict.", ">\n\nSo what do you suggest? Let countries invade others by force as long as they have nuclear weapons and let that be standard the world will live by in years to come? A recipe for chaos in my opinion.", ">\n\nStraw man. \n“I support this” was my first line. \nI think NATO should do more. We just have to recognize and try to control for unintended escalation. There are lots of good policy articles and writings about escalation ladders to read that explain this in more detail.", ">\n\nSeems like you just have absolutely crystal clear messaging on what is and is not a target Ukraine/NATO will go after of Russia's. 1) Any unit on Ukrainian soil and 2) Any point of military attack onto Ukrainian soil.", ">\n\nStraw man with an ad hominem bonus.", ">\n\nMy dude keep in mind Russia is internally and internationally touting and western weapons supply as \"NATO aggressive expansion and a justified existencial threat to Russia\"\nTheir are telling their own that this war is a defensive one, over and over to themselves and the entire world. For almost 11 months.", ">\n\nCorrect. \nPer Russian Doctrine, if they categorize the conflict as regional the Russian Doctrine opens up many more options for weapons employment by Russia. It’s like Russia has been preparing for escalation for 11 months, they just need a good reason.", ">\n\nExactly. Putin would probably love if Ukraine attacked Moscow proper so he could use it to drum up nationalistic support for his war of choice. So far they are playing it smart by sticking to military targets pretty directly related to Russia's invasion.", ">\n\nFindefuckinally" ]

[ "probably stupid question. but are they putting hardware there and let polish operate it or they also putting their own crews?", ">\n\nTheir own crews. That's why they didn't trasfer the patriot to Ukraine after Poland first suggested it in their pr stunt, since it would have meant to deploy German forces in Ukraine.", ">\n\nA system yes, not a battery including crew...", ">\n\nPoland has never requested deploying German personnel to Ukraine... They insisted to supply battery which is happening after few weeks of histery created by German media. I am tired of strightening these idiotic statements on every corner. This has become ridicoulous. How Poland which only supplies hardware could request other country to send their troops to Ukraine? What twisted way of thinking it is? Or it is only defence mechanism to create chaos and blur point of case?\n^Germany will now \"join the United States in supplying an additional Patriot air defense battery to Ukraine,\" the White House announced.^ which is exactly what Poland said", ">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 66%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe Bundeswehr will begin the relocation of Patriot air defence systems into Poland's territory in the coming days following a deal that was agreed upon by Berlin and Warsaw last month.\nThe German offer to deploy Patriots in Poland was made after a missile explosion in Przewodów near the Polish border with Ukraine, which early investigations suggest was a stray Ukrainian air defence rocket.\nThe German Defence Ministry rejected the proposal, pointing out that the weapons are a part of an internal NATO air defence system and cannot be used outside the Alliance.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: defence^#1 Patriot^#2 system^#3 Poland^#4 Polish^#5", ">\n\nMan only 80 years ago the idea of Germany moving military equipment into Poland would have freaked folks the heck out bahaha", ">\n\nI bet some German troops are having some jokes going around, wish I could hear them", ">\n\nI dont think germans make many jokes about world war two", ">\n\nOh we do, but nust the light stuff, nothing to offensive we joke about italy during ww2", ">\n\nPerhaps I meant, I dont think germans make many jokes about the way world war two was started", ">\n\nGiven the limited range of the Patriots, they'll need quite a few more to cover the border.", ">\n\nThere’s a joke about the New England Patriots’ secondary in here somewhere.", ">\n\nThe Patriot Defense System has so many gaps, Buffalo returned two kick-off TDs in the same game against it.", ">\n\nYou. I like you.", ">\n\nIf Russia can sell oil through India, Germany can certainly donate anti air weapons through Poland in my book. Remember, Russia are actively targeting civilians with these weapons, still! Give them anti air!", ">\n\nGive them whatever is needed to stop Russia", ">\n\nNATO should bring down missiles in western Ukraine, because they threaten NATO airspace and lead to casualities", ">\n\nAfter the two that struck poland a while back, this is a legit thing that can be done.", ">\n\nIf enough batteries enter theater they can provide a good umbrella ADIZ/Area Denial coverage for fast movers to start launching from currently impossible areas.\nThis is what Im hopeful of, air power/combined arms will push things full-tilt for Ukraine.", ">\n\nLast time was a bit chaotic.", ">\n\nIs pooty poot about to attack poland?", ">\n\nPoland would kick the shit out of Russia in their own, so I doubt he would be dumb enough to do that.", ">\n\nSo very likely then", ">\n\nI've seen this bit from the discovery channel before...", ">\n\nGermans can not wait to take a shot at Russia", ">\n\nGoing by recent history, this is more about shooting down stray missiles from both Ukraine & Russia.", ">\n\nWhat happened last time Germany moved military equipment into Poland?", ">\n\nWhat NATO exercises are you referring to?", ">\n\nWasn't that just a Special Military Operation or am I mixing up my Führers?", ">\n\nNot while moving miliitary equipment into poland from the west, only while moving military equipment from the east.", ">\n\nIts because of stray missiles and nato countries supply other nato countries", ">\n\nRegular rotation, helping partners out or response to a threat? I know that they (NATO members) move personnel and equipment around for operational readiness, response and interoperability training, just curious as to if there is a \"credible threat\" reason. Either way.....fuck ruSSia, fuck Putin", ">\n\nRU is moving troops and weapons into Belarus. Poland - Ukraine must be ready for anything.", ">\n\nThe airport at Rzeszow, Poland, a city in the southeast of Poland, has several US patriot missile systems. A lot of Ukraine-related flights go in there, including international military cargo flights.", ">\n\nI support this. \nHowever, we must recognize this is our path to escalation. More NATO forces on Poland’s border = more chance for accidental engagement between the two powers. ( more likely to be Russian forces making the mistake)\nThen deterrence starts to unravel as the two powers escalate through the spectrum of conflict.", ">\n\nSo what do you suggest? Let countries invade others by force as long as they have nuclear weapons and let that be standard the world will live by in years to come? A recipe for chaos in my opinion.", ">\n\nStraw man. \n“I support this” was my first line. \nI think NATO should do more. We just have to recognize and try to control for unintended escalation. There are lots of good policy articles and writings about escalation ladders to read that explain this in more detail.", ">\n\nSeems like you just have absolutely crystal clear messaging on what is and is not a target Ukraine/NATO will go after of Russia's. 1) Any unit on Ukrainian soil and 2) Any point of military attack onto Ukrainian soil.", ">\n\nStraw man with an ad hominem bonus.", ">\n\nMy dude keep in mind Russia is internally and internationally touting and western weapons supply as \"NATO aggressive expansion and a justified existencial threat to Russia\"\nTheir are telling their own that this war is a defensive one, over and over to themselves and the entire world. For almost 11 months.", ">\n\nCorrect. \nPer Russian Doctrine, if they categorize the conflict as regional the Russian Doctrine opens up many more options for weapons employment by Russia. It’s like Russia has been preparing for escalation for 11 months, they just need a good reason.", ">\n\nExactly. Putin would probably love if Ukraine attacked Moscow proper so he could use it to drum up nationalistic support for his war of choice. So far they are playing it smart by sticking to military targets pretty directly related to Russia's invasion.", ">\n\nFindefuckinally", ">\n\nIts a warcrime this purely defensive equipment hasnt made its way into Ukraine yet, this system could save so many lives and everyones dragging their feet.\nThey're probably going to need it more than ever if we have tanks being delivered too and attacked during the handover." ]

[ "probably stupid question. but are they putting hardware there and let polish operate it or they also putting their own crews?", ">\n\nTheir own crews. That's why they didn't trasfer the patriot to Ukraine after Poland first suggested it in their pr stunt, since it would have meant to deploy German forces in Ukraine.", ">\n\nA system yes, not a battery including crew...", ">\n\nPoland has never requested deploying German personnel to Ukraine... They insisted to supply battery which is happening after few weeks of histery created by German media. I am tired of strightening these idiotic statements on every corner. This has become ridicoulous. How Poland which only supplies hardware could request other country to send their troops to Ukraine? What twisted way of thinking it is? Or it is only defence mechanism to create chaos and blur point of case?\n^Germany will now \"join the United States in supplying an additional Patriot air defense battery to Ukraine,\" the White House announced.^ which is exactly what Poland said", ">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 66%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe Bundeswehr will begin the relocation of Patriot air defence systems into Poland's territory in the coming days following a deal that was agreed upon by Berlin and Warsaw last month.\nThe German offer to deploy Patriots in Poland was made after a missile explosion in Przewodów near the Polish border with Ukraine, which early investigations suggest was a stray Ukrainian air defence rocket.\nThe German Defence Ministry rejected the proposal, pointing out that the weapons are a part of an internal NATO air defence system and cannot be used outside the Alliance.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: defence^#1 Patriot^#2 system^#3 Poland^#4 Polish^#5", ">\n\nMan only 80 years ago the idea of Germany moving military equipment into Poland would have freaked folks the heck out bahaha", ">\n\nI bet some German troops are having some jokes going around, wish I could hear them", ">\n\nI dont think germans make many jokes about world war two", ">\n\nOh we do, but nust the light stuff, nothing to offensive we joke about italy during ww2", ">\n\nPerhaps I meant, I dont think germans make many jokes about the way world war two was started", ">\n\nGiven the limited range of the Patriots, they'll need quite a few more to cover the border.", ">\n\nThere’s a joke about the New England Patriots’ secondary in here somewhere.", ">\n\nThe Patriot Defense System has so many gaps, Buffalo returned two kick-off TDs in the same game against it.", ">\n\nYou. I like you.", ">\n\nIf Russia can sell oil through India, Germany can certainly donate anti air weapons through Poland in my book. Remember, Russia are actively targeting civilians with these weapons, still! Give them anti air!", ">\n\nGive them whatever is needed to stop Russia", ">\n\nNATO should bring down missiles in western Ukraine, because they threaten NATO airspace and lead to casualities", ">\n\nAfter the two that struck poland a while back, this is a legit thing that can be done.", ">\n\nIf enough batteries enter theater they can provide a good umbrella ADIZ/Area Denial coverage for fast movers to start launching from currently impossible areas.\nThis is what Im hopeful of, air power/combined arms will push things full-tilt for Ukraine.", ">\n\nLast time was a bit chaotic.", ">\n\nIs pooty poot about to attack poland?", ">\n\nPoland would kick the shit out of Russia in their own, so I doubt he would be dumb enough to do that.", ">\n\nSo very likely then", ">\n\nI've seen this bit from the discovery channel before...", ">\n\nGermans can not wait to take a shot at Russia", ">\n\nGoing by recent history, this is more about shooting down stray missiles from both Ukraine & Russia.", ">\n\nWhat happened last time Germany moved military equipment into Poland?", ">\n\nWhat NATO exercises are you referring to?", ">\n\nWasn't that just a Special Military Operation or am I mixing up my Führers?", ">\n\nNot while moving miliitary equipment into poland from the west, only while moving military equipment from the east.", ">\n\nIts because of stray missiles and nato countries supply other nato countries", ">\n\nRegular rotation, helping partners out or response to a threat? I know that they (NATO members) move personnel and equipment around for operational readiness, response and interoperability training, just curious as to if there is a \"credible threat\" reason. Either way.....fuck ruSSia, fuck Putin", ">\n\nRU is moving troops and weapons into Belarus. Poland - Ukraine must be ready for anything.", ">\n\nThe airport at Rzeszow, Poland, a city in the southeast of Poland, has several US patriot missile systems. A lot of Ukraine-related flights go in there, including international military cargo flights.", ">\n\nI support this. \nHowever, we must recognize this is our path to escalation. More NATO forces on Poland’s border = more chance for accidental engagement between the two powers. ( more likely to be Russian forces making the mistake)\nThen deterrence starts to unravel as the two powers escalate through the spectrum of conflict.", ">\n\nSo what do you suggest? Let countries invade others by force as long as they have nuclear weapons and let that be standard the world will live by in years to come? A recipe for chaos in my opinion.", ">\n\nStraw man. \n“I support this” was my first line. \nI think NATO should do more. We just have to recognize and try to control for unintended escalation. There are lots of good policy articles and writings about escalation ladders to read that explain this in more detail.", ">\n\nSeems like you just have absolutely crystal clear messaging on what is and is not a target Ukraine/NATO will go after of Russia's. 1) Any unit on Ukrainian soil and 2) Any point of military attack onto Ukrainian soil.", ">\n\nStraw man with an ad hominem bonus.", ">\n\nMy dude keep in mind Russia is internally and internationally touting and western weapons supply as \"NATO aggressive expansion and a justified existencial threat to Russia\"\nTheir are telling their own that this war is a defensive one, over and over to themselves and the entire world. For almost 11 months.", ">\n\nCorrect. \nPer Russian Doctrine, if they categorize the conflict as regional the Russian Doctrine opens up many more options for weapons employment by Russia. It’s like Russia has been preparing for escalation for 11 months, they just need a good reason.", ">\n\nExactly. Putin would probably love if Ukraine attacked Moscow proper so he could use it to drum up nationalistic support for his war of choice. So far they are playing it smart by sticking to military targets pretty directly related to Russia's invasion.", ">\n\nFindefuckinally", ">\n\nIts a warcrime this purely defensive equipment hasnt made its way into Ukraine yet, this system could save so many lives and everyones dragging their feet.\nThey're probably going to need it more than ever if we have tanks being delivered too and attacked during the handover.", ">\n\nThey’re not dragging their feet, they’re actively training them to use it right now to deploy it ASAP." ]

[]

[ "Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”\n“If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.\n\nThe first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful." ]

[ "Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”\n“If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.\n\nThe first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful.", ">\n\nThe first view I saw of it looked like two arms holding up the biggest butt log in history." ]

[ "Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”\n“If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.\n\nThe first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful.", ">\n\nThe first view I saw of it looked like two arms holding up the biggest butt log in history.", ">\n\nRandy Marsh was here" ]

[ "Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”\n“If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.\n\nThe first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful.", ">\n\nThe first view I saw of it looked like two arms holding up the biggest butt log in history.", ">\n\nRandy Marsh was here", ">\n\nI wonder how many Bonos that statue weighs 🤔" ]

[ "Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”\n“If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.\n\nThe first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful.", ">\n\nThe first view I saw of it looked like two arms holding up the biggest butt log in history.", ">\n\nRandy Marsh was here", ">\n\nI wonder how many Bonos that statue weighs 🤔", ">\n\nCourics! (I know what I'm talking about, im from zurich)" ]

[ "Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”\n“If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.\n\nThe first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful.", ">\n\nThe first view I saw of it looked like two arms holding up the biggest butt log in history.", ">\n\nRandy Marsh was here", ">\n\nI wonder how many Bonos that statue weighs 🤔", ">\n\nCourics! (I know what I'm talking about, im from zurich)", ">\n\nDoes Bono want the bitty?" ]

[ "Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”\n“If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.\n\nThe first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful.", ">\n\nThe first view I saw of it looked like two arms holding up the biggest butt log in history.", ">\n\nRandy Marsh was here", ">\n\nI wonder how many Bonos that statue weighs 🤔", ">\n\nCourics! (I know what I'm talking about, im from zurich)", ">\n\nDoes Bono want the bitty?", ">\n\nEasy, Bono, that hurts the bitty!\nBono: BIT-TY!!" ]

[ "Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”\n“If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.\n\nThe first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful.", ">\n\nThe first view I saw of it looked like two arms holding up the biggest butt log in history.", ">\n\nRandy Marsh was here", ">\n\nI wonder how many Bonos that statue weighs 🤔", ">\n\nCourics! (I know what I'm talking about, im from zurich)", ">\n\nDoes Bono want the bitty?", ">\n\nEasy, Bono, that hurts the bitty!\nBono: BIT-TY!!", ">\n\nI’ll be honest it isn’t my taste, the MLK granite head in DC is much better." ]

[ "Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”\n“If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.\n\nThe first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful.", ">\n\nThe first view I saw of it looked like two arms holding up the biggest butt log in history.", ">\n\nRandy Marsh was here", ">\n\nI wonder how many Bonos that statue weighs 🤔", ">\n\nCourics! (I know what I'm talking about, im from zurich)", ">\n\nDoes Bono want the bitty?", ">\n\nEasy, Bono, that hurts the bitty!\nBono: BIT-TY!!", ">\n\nI’ll be honest it isn’t my taste, the MLK granite head in DC is much better.", ">\n\nThe head that is almost his whole body?" ]

[ "Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”\n“If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.\n\nThe first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful.", ">\n\nThe first view I saw of it looked like two arms holding up the biggest butt log in history.", ">\n\nRandy Marsh was here", ">\n\nI wonder how many Bonos that statue weighs 🤔", ">\n\nCourics! (I know what I'm talking about, im from zurich)", ">\n\nDoes Bono want the bitty?", ">\n\nEasy, Bono, that hurts the bitty!\nBono: BIT-TY!!", ">\n\nI’ll be honest it isn’t my taste, the MLK granite head in DC is much better.", ">\n\nThe head that is almost his whole body?", ">\n\n\"excuse me, sir. you're sitting on my body, which is also my face\"" ]

[ "Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”\n“If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.\n\nThe first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful.", ">\n\nThe first view I saw of it looked like two arms holding up the biggest butt log in history.", ">\n\nRandy Marsh was here", ">\n\nI wonder how many Bonos that statue weighs 🤔", ">\n\nCourics! (I know what I'm talking about, im from zurich)", ">\n\nDoes Bono want the bitty?", ">\n\nEasy, Bono, that hurts the bitty!\nBono: BIT-TY!!", ">\n\nI’ll be honest it isn’t my taste, the MLK granite head in DC is much better.", ">\n\nThe head that is almost his whole body?", ">\n\n\"excuse me, sir. you're sitting on my body, which is also my face\"", ">\n\nIs butt legs?" ]

[ "Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”\n“If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.\n\nThe first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful.", ">\n\nThe first view I saw of it looked like two arms holding up the biggest butt log in history.", ">\n\nRandy Marsh was here", ">\n\nI wonder how many Bonos that statue weighs 🤔", ">\n\nCourics! (I know what I'm talking about, im from zurich)", ">\n\nDoes Bono want the bitty?", ">\n\nEasy, Bono, that hurts the bitty!\nBono: BIT-TY!!", ">\n\nI’ll be honest it isn’t my taste, the MLK granite head in DC is much better.", ">\n\nThe head that is almost his whole body?", ">\n\n\"excuse me, sir. you're sitting on my body, which is also my face\"", ">\n\nIs butt legs?", ">\n\nButt is definitely legs." ]

[ "Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”\n“If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.\n\nThe first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful.", ">\n\nThe first view I saw of it looked like two arms holding up the biggest butt log in history.", ">\n\nRandy Marsh was here", ">\n\nI wonder how many Bonos that statue weighs 🤔", ">\n\nCourics! (I know what I'm talking about, im from zurich)", ">\n\nDoes Bono want the bitty?", ">\n\nEasy, Bono, that hurts the bitty!\nBono: BIT-TY!!", ">\n\nI’ll be honest it isn’t my taste, the MLK granite head in DC is much better.", ">\n\nThe head that is almost his whole body?", ">\n\n\"excuse me, sir. you're sitting on my body, which is also my face\"", ">\n\nIs butt legs?", ">\n\nButt is definitely legs.", ">\n\nIt's like a five-dimensional creature eating itself.\n\nEmbrace Boston, a nonprofit organization that works toward racial and economic justice and is a part of the Boston Foundation, helped provide resources and $10.5 million in funds, including a maintenance fund, for “The Embrace” and the Freedom Plaza." ]

[ "Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”\n“If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.\n\nThe first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful.", ">\n\nThe first view I saw of it looked like two arms holding up the biggest butt log in history.", ">\n\nRandy Marsh was here", ">\n\nI wonder how many Bonos that statue weighs 🤔", ">\n\nCourics! (I know what I'm talking about, im from zurich)", ">\n\nDoes Bono want the bitty?", ">\n\nEasy, Bono, that hurts the bitty!\nBono: BIT-TY!!", ">\n\nI’ll be honest it isn’t my taste, the MLK granite head in DC is much better.", ">\n\nThe head that is almost his whole body?", ">\n\n\"excuse me, sir. you're sitting on my body, which is also my face\"", ">\n\nIs butt legs?", ">\n\nButt is definitely legs.", ">\n\nIt's like a five-dimensional creature eating itself.\n\nEmbrace Boston, a nonprofit organization that works toward racial and economic justice and is a part of the Boston Foundation, helped provide resources and $10.5 million in funds, including a maintenance fund, for “The Embrace” and the Freedom Plaza.", ">\n\nDear god, think how far 10 mil could go toward education or helping homeless people or providing services to the addicted. This makes me pretty sick. It's both ugly and incomprehensible. Even a stick figure lets you know what it is." ]

[ "Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”\n“If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.\n\nThe first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful.", ">\n\nThe first view I saw of it looked like two arms holding up the biggest butt log in history.", ">\n\nRandy Marsh was here", ">\n\nI wonder how many Bonos that statue weighs 🤔", ">\n\nCourics! (I know what I'm talking about, im from zurich)", ">\n\nDoes Bono want the bitty?", ">\n\nEasy, Bono, that hurts the bitty!\nBono: BIT-TY!!", ">\n\nI’ll be honest it isn’t my taste, the MLK granite head in DC is much better.", ">\n\nThe head that is almost his whole body?", ">\n\n\"excuse me, sir. you're sitting on my body, which is also my face\"", ">\n\nIs butt legs?", ">\n\nButt is definitely legs.", ">\n\nIt's like a five-dimensional creature eating itself.\n\nEmbrace Boston, a nonprofit organization that works toward racial and economic justice and is a part of the Boston Foundation, helped provide resources and $10.5 million in funds, including a maintenance fund, for “The Embrace” and the Freedom Plaza.", ">\n\nDear god, think how far 10 mil could go toward education or helping homeless people or providing services to the addicted. This makes me pretty sick. It's both ugly and incomprehensible. Even a stick figure lets you know what it is.", ">\n\nThis. I understand the need to memorialize but it seems insensitive to sink millions into remembering the dead when that money could be used to help the living. If they are important then we should make sure to teach their history to younger generations, not build a statue many will never see. Malcolm Gadwell did a great episode these kind of situations and the dark reality of how those funds could be better implemented" ]

[ "Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”\n“If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.\n\nThe first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful.", ">\n\nThe first view I saw of it looked like two arms holding up the biggest butt log in history.", ">\n\nRandy Marsh was here", ">\n\nI wonder how many Bonos that statue weighs 🤔", ">\n\nCourics! (I know what I'm talking about, im from zurich)", ">\n\nDoes Bono want the bitty?", ">\n\nEasy, Bono, that hurts the bitty!\nBono: BIT-TY!!", ">\n\nI’ll be honest it isn’t my taste, the MLK granite head in DC is much better.", ">\n\nThe head that is almost his whole body?", ">\n\n\"excuse me, sir. you're sitting on my body, which is also my face\"", ">\n\nIs butt legs?", ">\n\nButt is definitely legs.", ">\n\nIt's like a five-dimensional creature eating itself.\n\nEmbrace Boston, a nonprofit organization that works toward racial and economic justice and is a part of the Boston Foundation, helped provide resources and $10.5 million in funds, including a maintenance fund, for “The Embrace” and the Freedom Plaza.", ">\n\nDear god, think how far 10 mil could go toward education or helping homeless people or providing services to the addicted. This makes me pretty sick. It's both ugly and incomprehensible. Even a stick figure lets you know what it is.", ">\n\nThis. I understand the need to memorialize but it seems insensitive to sink millions into remembering the dead when that money could be used to help the living. If they are important then we should make sure to teach their history to younger generations, not build a statue many will never see. Malcolm Gadwell did a great episode these kind of situations and the dark reality of how those funds could be better implemented", ">\n\nI don’t necessarily disagree, but couldn’t we make this same argument for every dollar spent on arts or decoration or even personal luxuries?" ]

[ "Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”\n“If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.\n\nThe first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful.", ">\n\nThe first view I saw of it looked like two arms holding up the biggest butt log in history.", ">\n\nRandy Marsh was here", ">\n\nI wonder how many Bonos that statue weighs 🤔", ">\n\nCourics! (I know what I'm talking about, im from zurich)", ">\n\nDoes Bono want the bitty?", ">\n\nEasy, Bono, that hurts the bitty!\nBono: BIT-TY!!", ">\n\nI’ll be honest it isn’t my taste, the MLK granite head in DC is much better.", ">\n\nThe head that is almost his whole body?", ">\n\n\"excuse me, sir. you're sitting on my body, which is also my face\"", ">\n\nIs butt legs?", ">\n\nButt is definitely legs.", ">\n\nIt's like a five-dimensional creature eating itself.\n\nEmbrace Boston, a nonprofit organization that works toward racial and economic justice and is a part of the Boston Foundation, helped provide resources and $10.5 million in funds, including a maintenance fund, for “The Embrace” and the Freedom Plaza.", ">\n\nDear god, think how far 10 mil could go toward education or helping homeless people or providing services to the addicted. This makes me pretty sick. It's both ugly and incomprehensible. Even a stick figure lets you know what it is.", ">\n\nThis. I understand the need to memorialize but it seems insensitive to sink millions into remembering the dead when that money could be used to help the living. If they are important then we should make sure to teach their history to younger generations, not build a statue many will never see. Malcolm Gadwell did a great episode these kind of situations and the dark reality of how those funds could be better implemented", ">\n\nI don’t necessarily disagree, but couldn’t we make this same argument for every dollar spent on arts or decoration or even personal luxuries?", ">\n\nIt's the classic slippery slope situation. Again, I do not do this argument as much justice as Malcolm Gladwell does in his podcast episode but it's less about expenses and more about extreme expenses like what this statue cost. His example is of the 9/11 memorial and the cost and extreme disruption it caused NYC and the hard question of its true worth; it's an extremely interesting conversation and I encourage people to give it a listen. \nArt will also always be tricky because of the influx of wealthy people who use it as a tool for tax write-offs and consolidating wealth. It's tricky, but I'm just curious to know more. Who donated the money for this statue, why did they donate, did they know this was were the money was going towards, and so on. I'd rather know how these decisions came about rather than just be mad at the consequences; without that insight the same mistakes will keep getting made." ]

[ "Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”\n“If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.\n\nThe first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful.", ">\n\nThe first view I saw of it looked like two arms holding up the biggest butt log in history.", ">\n\nRandy Marsh was here", ">\n\nI wonder how many Bonos that statue weighs 🤔", ">\n\nCourics! (I know what I'm talking about, im from zurich)", ">\n\nDoes Bono want the bitty?", ">\n\nEasy, Bono, that hurts the bitty!\nBono: BIT-TY!!", ">\n\nI’ll be honest it isn’t my taste, the MLK granite head in DC is much better.", ">\n\nThe head that is almost his whole body?", ">\n\n\"excuse me, sir. you're sitting on my body, which is also my face\"", ">\n\nIs butt legs?", ">\n\nButt is definitely legs.", ">\n\nIt's like a five-dimensional creature eating itself.\n\nEmbrace Boston, a nonprofit organization that works toward racial and economic justice and is a part of the Boston Foundation, helped provide resources and $10.5 million in funds, including a maintenance fund, for “The Embrace” and the Freedom Plaza.", ">\n\nDear god, think how far 10 mil could go toward education or helping homeless people or providing services to the addicted. This makes me pretty sick. It's both ugly and incomprehensible. Even a stick figure lets you know what it is.", ">\n\nThis. I understand the need to memorialize but it seems insensitive to sink millions into remembering the dead when that money could be used to help the living. If they are important then we should make sure to teach their history to younger generations, not build a statue many will never see. Malcolm Gadwell did a great episode these kind of situations and the dark reality of how those funds could be better implemented", ">\n\nI don’t necessarily disagree, but couldn’t we make this same argument for every dollar spent on arts or decoration or even personal luxuries?", ">\n\nIt's the classic slippery slope situation. Again, I do not do this argument as much justice as Malcolm Gladwell does in his podcast episode but it's less about expenses and more about extreme expenses like what this statue cost. His example is of the 9/11 memorial and the cost and extreme disruption it caused NYC and the hard question of its true worth; it's an extremely interesting conversation and I encourage people to give it a listen. \nArt will also always be tricky because of the influx of wealthy people who use it as a tool for tax write-offs and consolidating wealth. It's tricky, but I'm just curious to know more. Who donated the money for this statue, why did they donate, did they know this was were the money was going towards, and so on. I'd rather know how these decisions came about rather than just be mad at the consequences; without that insight the same mistakes will keep getting made.", ">\n\nI don't think it's necessarily a slippery slope, I'm just asking us to apply the principle consistently. Any dollar spent on luxury or decoration could instead be spent providing necessities to people who lack them, and if it's immoral to spend $10 million on some humungous arm statue, isn't it also immoral to spend $10,000 on a more modest piece of public art?\nThis is an old response to (or component of) utilitarianism: something like, can we really justify buying new clothes or going on vacations or even spending an extra few bucks on an expensive coffee drink when that money could be feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, providing life-saving medical care, etc.\nAnd I'm not totally sure how to square this. Intuitively, it seems kind of wrong to say we ought to eschew all luxury -- that just about anything we do beyond the satisfaction of our needs is wrong as long as there are people whose needs aren't met. A lot of the texture of life comes from little excesses here and there, and any normative ethical theory that demands us to give up all but the barest comforts just feels wrong (or at the very least, it seems too demanding to really be of much practical use). But at the same time, if we believe an act is good inasmuch as it maximizes happiness or reduces suffering, it does seem to follow that just about any leisure or luxury we engage in is immoral (unless you genuinely think there's more utility in, say, chugging a latte than in providing a malaria shot to some kid in rural Nigeria -- or more utility in sitting at home watching Netflix instead of, say, manning a soup kitchen). \nI guess, like you said, there's still the issue of scale. Spending $1.5 billion on the 9/11 memorial piece is more wrong than going out for a fancy dinner (or commissioning a less extravagant piece), in the same sense that stealing your friend's car is worse than stealing a french fry off his plate." ]

[ "Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”\n“If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.\n\nThe first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful.", ">\n\nThe first view I saw of it looked like two arms holding up the biggest butt log in history.", ">\n\nRandy Marsh was here", ">\n\nI wonder how many Bonos that statue weighs 🤔", ">\n\nCourics! (I know what I'm talking about, im from zurich)", ">\n\nDoes Bono want the bitty?", ">\n\nEasy, Bono, that hurts the bitty!\nBono: BIT-TY!!", ">\n\nI’ll be honest it isn’t my taste, the MLK granite head in DC is much better.", ">\n\nThe head that is almost his whole body?", ">\n\n\"excuse me, sir. you're sitting on my body, which is also my face\"", ">\n\nIs butt legs?", ">\n\nButt is definitely legs.", ">\n\nIt's like a five-dimensional creature eating itself.\n\nEmbrace Boston, a nonprofit organization that works toward racial and economic justice and is a part of the Boston Foundation, helped provide resources and $10.5 million in funds, including a maintenance fund, for “The Embrace” and the Freedom Plaza.", ">\n\nDear god, think how far 10 mil could go toward education or helping homeless people or providing services to the addicted. This makes me pretty sick. It's both ugly and incomprehensible. Even a stick figure lets you know what it is.", ">\n\nThis. I understand the need to memorialize but it seems insensitive to sink millions into remembering the dead when that money could be used to help the living. If they are important then we should make sure to teach their history to younger generations, not build a statue many will never see. Malcolm Gadwell did a great episode these kind of situations and the dark reality of how those funds could be better implemented", ">\n\nI don’t necessarily disagree, but couldn’t we make this same argument for every dollar spent on arts or decoration or even personal luxuries?", ">\n\nIt's the classic slippery slope situation. Again, I do not do this argument as much justice as Malcolm Gladwell does in his podcast episode but it's less about expenses and more about extreme expenses like what this statue cost. His example is of the 9/11 memorial and the cost and extreme disruption it caused NYC and the hard question of its true worth; it's an extremely interesting conversation and I encourage people to give it a listen. \nArt will also always be tricky because of the influx of wealthy people who use it as a tool for tax write-offs and consolidating wealth. It's tricky, but I'm just curious to know more. Who donated the money for this statue, why did they donate, did they know this was were the money was going towards, and so on. I'd rather know how these decisions came about rather than just be mad at the consequences; without that insight the same mistakes will keep getting made.", ">\n\nI don't think it's necessarily a slippery slope, I'm just asking us to apply the principle consistently. Any dollar spent on luxury or decoration could instead be spent providing necessities to people who lack them, and if it's immoral to spend $10 million on some humungous arm statue, isn't it also immoral to spend $10,000 on a more modest piece of public art?\nThis is an old response to (or component of) utilitarianism: something like, can we really justify buying new clothes or going on vacations or even spending an extra few bucks on an expensive coffee drink when that money could be feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, providing life-saving medical care, etc.\nAnd I'm not totally sure how to square this. Intuitively, it seems kind of wrong to say we ought to eschew all luxury -- that just about anything we do beyond the satisfaction of our needs is wrong as long as there are people whose needs aren't met. A lot of the texture of life comes from little excesses here and there, and any normative ethical theory that demands us to give up all but the barest comforts just feels wrong (or at the very least, it seems too demanding to really be of much practical use). But at the same time, if we believe an act is good inasmuch as it maximizes happiness or reduces suffering, it does seem to follow that just about any leisure or luxury we engage in is immoral (unless you genuinely think there's more utility in, say, chugging a latte than in providing a malaria shot to some kid in rural Nigeria -- or more utility in sitting at home watching Netflix instead of, say, manning a soup kitchen). \nI guess, like you said, there's still the issue of scale. Spending $1.5 billion on the 9/11 memorial piece is more wrong than going out for a fancy dinner (or commissioning a less extravagant piece), in the same sense that stealing your friend's car is worse than stealing a french fry off his plate.", ">\n\nAt the same time, art is an easy distraction when it comes time to criticize wasteful spending. \nPlenty more is wasted on projects that achieve far less (which is saying something) due to corruption, inefficiency, lack of oversight, etc. \nHow much is lost as a result of a financial system fluctuating for seemingly no reason on any given day? How much has been spent to support these institutions? How much of the problems we're concerned with were created as a direct result of these institutions and the lack of adequate regulation?\nI'm not saying your points aren't valid, nor that someone who's struggling in these communities shouldn't feel pissed off when they see this statue, but just that possibly as a result of art being what it is, it's easy to make it a symbol in a way that draws more attention than arguably far more relevant issues." ]

[ "Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”\n“If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.\n\nThe first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful.", ">\n\nThe first view I saw of it looked like two arms holding up the biggest butt log in history.", ">\n\nRandy Marsh was here", ">\n\nI wonder how many Bonos that statue weighs 🤔", ">\n\nCourics! (I know what I'm talking about, im from zurich)", ">\n\nDoes Bono want the bitty?", ">\n\nEasy, Bono, that hurts the bitty!\nBono: BIT-TY!!", ">\n\nI’ll be honest it isn’t my taste, the MLK granite head in DC is much better.", ">\n\nThe head that is almost his whole body?", ">\n\n\"excuse me, sir. you're sitting on my body, which is also my face\"", ">\n\nIs butt legs?", ">\n\nButt is definitely legs.", ">\n\nIt's like a five-dimensional creature eating itself.\n\nEmbrace Boston, a nonprofit organization that works toward racial and economic justice and is a part of the Boston Foundation, helped provide resources and $10.5 million in funds, including a maintenance fund, for “The Embrace” and the Freedom Plaza.", ">\n\nDear god, think how far 10 mil could go toward education or helping homeless people or providing services to the addicted. This makes me pretty sick. It's both ugly and incomprehensible. Even a stick figure lets you know what it is.", ">\n\nThis. I understand the need to memorialize but it seems insensitive to sink millions into remembering the dead when that money could be used to help the living. If they are important then we should make sure to teach their history to younger generations, not build a statue many will never see. Malcolm Gadwell did a great episode these kind of situations and the dark reality of how those funds could be better implemented", ">\n\nI don’t necessarily disagree, but couldn’t we make this same argument for every dollar spent on arts or decoration or even personal luxuries?", ">\n\nIt's the classic slippery slope situation. Again, I do not do this argument as much justice as Malcolm Gladwell does in his podcast episode but it's less about expenses and more about extreme expenses like what this statue cost. His example is of the 9/11 memorial and the cost and extreme disruption it caused NYC and the hard question of its true worth; it's an extremely interesting conversation and I encourage people to give it a listen. \nArt will also always be tricky because of the influx of wealthy people who use it as a tool for tax write-offs and consolidating wealth. It's tricky, but I'm just curious to know more. Who donated the money for this statue, why did they donate, did they know this was were the money was going towards, and so on. I'd rather know how these decisions came about rather than just be mad at the consequences; without that insight the same mistakes will keep getting made.", ">\n\nI don't think it's necessarily a slippery slope, I'm just asking us to apply the principle consistently. Any dollar spent on luxury or decoration could instead be spent providing necessities to people who lack them, and if it's immoral to spend $10 million on some humungous arm statue, isn't it also immoral to spend $10,000 on a more modest piece of public art?\nThis is an old response to (or component of) utilitarianism: something like, can we really justify buying new clothes or going on vacations or even spending an extra few bucks on an expensive coffee drink when that money could be feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, providing life-saving medical care, etc.\nAnd I'm not totally sure how to square this. Intuitively, it seems kind of wrong to say we ought to eschew all luxury -- that just about anything we do beyond the satisfaction of our needs is wrong as long as there are people whose needs aren't met. A lot of the texture of life comes from little excesses here and there, and any normative ethical theory that demands us to give up all but the barest comforts just feels wrong (or at the very least, it seems too demanding to really be of much practical use). But at the same time, if we believe an act is good inasmuch as it maximizes happiness or reduces suffering, it does seem to follow that just about any leisure or luxury we engage in is immoral (unless you genuinely think there's more utility in, say, chugging a latte than in providing a malaria shot to some kid in rural Nigeria -- or more utility in sitting at home watching Netflix instead of, say, manning a soup kitchen). \nI guess, like you said, there's still the issue of scale. Spending $1.5 billion on the 9/11 memorial piece is more wrong than going out for a fancy dinner (or commissioning a less extravagant piece), in the same sense that stealing your friend's car is worse than stealing a french fry off his plate.", ">\n\nAt the same time, art is an easy distraction when it comes time to criticize wasteful spending. \nPlenty more is wasted on projects that achieve far less (which is saying something) due to corruption, inefficiency, lack of oversight, etc. \nHow much is lost as a result of a financial system fluctuating for seemingly no reason on any given day? How much has been spent to support these institutions? How much of the problems we're concerned with were created as a direct result of these institutions and the lack of adequate regulation?\nI'm not saying your points aren't valid, nor that someone who's struggling in these communities shouldn't feel pissed off when they see this statue, but just that possibly as a result of art being what it is, it's easy to make it a symbol in a way that draws more attention than arguably far more relevant issues.", ">\n\nI want to be clear, I'm not coming out against public art (and frankly, I actually appreciate this humungous arm sculpture). I guess more than anything, I'm just playing devil's advocate or talking through some challenges I have with my own normative ethical framework. As much as I value beautiful things, it seems wrong to install a big, expensive, fuck-off statue when people might be living in tents on the same street. But at the same time, it feels wrong to say indulging in aesthetics is immoral as long as there's a single person who's not getting enough to eat. \nI agree though, I think there's a lot more waste in commerce than in art, and we don't really account for that waste because it's less visible and it's taking place in a sphere that's meant to be productive." ]

[ "Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”\n“If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.\n\nThe first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful.", ">\n\nThe first view I saw of it looked like two arms holding up the biggest butt log in history.", ">\n\nRandy Marsh was here", ">\n\nI wonder how many Bonos that statue weighs 🤔", ">\n\nCourics! (I know what I'm talking about, im from zurich)", ">\n\nDoes Bono want the bitty?", ">\n\nEasy, Bono, that hurts the bitty!\nBono: BIT-TY!!", ">\n\nI’ll be honest it isn’t my taste, the MLK granite head in DC is much better.", ">\n\nThe head that is almost his whole body?", ">\n\n\"excuse me, sir. you're sitting on my body, which is also my face\"", ">\n\nIs butt legs?", ">\n\nButt is definitely legs.", ">\n\nIt's like a five-dimensional creature eating itself.\n\nEmbrace Boston, a nonprofit organization that works toward racial and economic justice and is a part of the Boston Foundation, helped provide resources and $10.5 million in funds, including a maintenance fund, for “The Embrace” and the Freedom Plaza.", ">\n\nDear god, think how far 10 mil could go toward education or helping homeless people or providing services to the addicted. This makes me pretty sick. It's both ugly and incomprehensible. Even a stick figure lets you know what it is.", ">\n\nThis. I understand the need to memorialize but it seems insensitive to sink millions into remembering the dead when that money could be used to help the living. If they are important then we should make sure to teach their history to younger generations, not build a statue many will never see. Malcolm Gadwell did a great episode these kind of situations and the dark reality of how those funds could be better implemented", ">\n\nI don’t necessarily disagree, but couldn’t we make this same argument for every dollar spent on arts or decoration or even personal luxuries?", ">\n\nIt's the classic slippery slope situation. Again, I do not do this argument as much justice as Malcolm Gladwell does in his podcast episode but it's less about expenses and more about extreme expenses like what this statue cost. His example is of the 9/11 memorial and the cost and extreme disruption it caused NYC and the hard question of its true worth; it's an extremely interesting conversation and I encourage people to give it a listen. \nArt will also always be tricky because of the influx of wealthy people who use it as a tool for tax write-offs and consolidating wealth. It's tricky, but I'm just curious to know more. Who donated the money for this statue, why did they donate, did they know this was were the money was going towards, and so on. I'd rather know how these decisions came about rather than just be mad at the consequences; without that insight the same mistakes will keep getting made.", ">\n\nI don't think it's necessarily a slippery slope, I'm just asking us to apply the principle consistently. Any dollar spent on luxury or decoration could instead be spent providing necessities to people who lack them, and if it's immoral to spend $10 million on some humungous arm statue, isn't it also immoral to spend $10,000 on a more modest piece of public art?\nThis is an old response to (or component of) utilitarianism: something like, can we really justify buying new clothes or going on vacations or even spending an extra few bucks on an expensive coffee drink when that money could be feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, providing life-saving medical care, etc.\nAnd I'm not totally sure how to square this. Intuitively, it seems kind of wrong to say we ought to eschew all luxury -- that just about anything we do beyond the satisfaction of our needs is wrong as long as there are people whose needs aren't met. A lot of the texture of life comes from little excesses here and there, and any normative ethical theory that demands us to give up all but the barest comforts just feels wrong (or at the very least, it seems too demanding to really be of much practical use). But at the same time, if we believe an act is good inasmuch as it maximizes happiness or reduces suffering, it does seem to follow that just about any leisure or luxury we engage in is immoral (unless you genuinely think there's more utility in, say, chugging a latte than in providing a malaria shot to some kid in rural Nigeria -- or more utility in sitting at home watching Netflix instead of, say, manning a soup kitchen). \nI guess, like you said, there's still the issue of scale. Spending $1.5 billion on the 9/11 memorial piece is more wrong than going out for a fancy dinner (or commissioning a less extravagant piece), in the same sense that stealing your friend's car is worse than stealing a french fry off his plate.", ">\n\nAt the same time, art is an easy distraction when it comes time to criticize wasteful spending. \nPlenty more is wasted on projects that achieve far less (which is saying something) due to corruption, inefficiency, lack of oversight, etc. \nHow much is lost as a result of a financial system fluctuating for seemingly no reason on any given day? How much has been spent to support these institutions? How much of the problems we're concerned with were created as a direct result of these institutions and the lack of adequate regulation?\nI'm not saying your points aren't valid, nor that someone who's struggling in these communities shouldn't feel pissed off when they see this statue, but just that possibly as a result of art being what it is, it's easy to make it a symbol in a way that draws more attention than arguably far more relevant issues.", ">\n\nI want to be clear, I'm not coming out against public art (and frankly, I actually appreciate this humungous arm sculpture). I guess more than anything, I'm just playing devil's advocate or talking through some challenges I have with my own normative ethical framework. As much as I value beautiful things, it seems wrong to install a big, expensive, fuck-off statue when people might be living in tents on the same street. But at the same time, it feels wrong to say indulging in aesthetics is immoral as long as there's a single person who's not getting enough to eat. \nI agree though, I think there's a lot more waste in commerce than in art, and we don't really account for that waste because it's less visible and it's taking place in a sphere that's meant to be productive.", ">\n\nY’all really made a monument to MLK where his head is missing?" ]

[ "Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”\n“If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.\n\nThe first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful.", ">\n\nThe first view I saw of it looked like two arms holding up the biggest butt log in history.", ">\n\nRandy Marsh was here", ">\n\nI wonder how many Bonos that statue weighs 🤔", ">\n\nCourics! (I know what I'm talking about, im from zurich)", ">\n\nDoes Bono want the bitty?", ">\n\nEasy, Bono, that hurts the bitty!\nBono: BIT-TY!!", ">\n\nI’ll be honest it isn’t my taste, the MLK granite head in DC is much better.", ">\n\nThe head that is almost his whole body?", ">\n\n\"excuse me, sir. you're sitting on my body, which is also my face\"", ">\n\nIs butt legs?", ">\n\nButt is definitely legs.", ">\n\nIt's like a five-dimensional creature eating itself.\n\nEmbrace Boston, a nonprofit organization that works toward racial and economic justice and is a part of the Boston Foundation, helped provide resources and $10.5 million in funds, including a maintenance fund, for “The Embrace” and the Freedom Plaza.", ">\n\nDear god, think how far 10 mil could go toward education or helping homeless people or providing services to the addicted. This makes me pretty sick. It's both ugly and incomprehensible. Even a stick figure lets you know what it is.", ">\n\nThis. I understand the need to memorialize but it seems insensitive to sink millions into remembering the dead when that money could be used to help the living. If they are important then we should make sure to teach their history to younger generations, not build a statue many will never see. Malcolm Gadwell did a great episode these kind of situations and the dark reality of how those funds could be better implemented", ">\n\nI don’t necessarily disagree, but couldn’t we make this same argument for every dollar spent on arts or decoration or even personal luxuries?", ">\n\nIt's the classic slippery slope situation. Again, I do not do this argument as much justice as Malcolm Gladwell does in his podcast episode but it's less about expenses and more about extreme expenses like what this statue cost. His example is of the 9/11 memorial and the cost and extreme disruption it caused NYC and the hard question of its true worth; it's an extremely interesting conversation and I encourage people to give it a listen. \nArt will also always be tricky because of the influx of wealthy people who use it as a tool for tax write-offs and consolidating wealth. It's tricky, but I'm just curious to know more. Who donated the money for this statue, why did they donate, did they know this was were the money was going towards, and so on. I'd rather know how these decisions came about rather than just be mad at the consequences; without that insight the same mistakes will keep getting made.", ">\n\nI don't think it's necessarily a slippery slope, I'm just asking us to apply the principle consistently. Any dollar spent on luxury or decoration could instead be spent providing necessities to people who lack them, and if it's immoral to spend $10 million on some humungous arm statue, isn't it also immoral to spend $10,000 on a more modest piece of public art?\nThis is an old response to (or component of) utilitarianism: something like, can we really justify buying new clothes or going on vacations or even spending an extra few bucks on an expensive coffee drink when that money could be feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, providing life-saving medical care, etc.\nAnd I'm not totally sure how to square this. Intuitively, it seems kind of wrong to say we ought to eschew all luxury -- that just about anything we do beyond the satisfaction of our needs is wrong as long as there are people whose needs aren't met. A lot of the texture of life comes from little excesses here and there, and any normative ethical theory that demands us to give up all but the barest comforts just feels wrong (or at the very least, it seems too demanding to really be of much practical use). But at the same time, if we believe an act is good inasmuch as it maximizes happiness or reduces suffering, it does seem to follow that just about any leisure or luxury we engage in is immoral (unless you genuinely think there's more utility in, say, chugging a latte than in providing a malaria shot to some kid in rural Nigeria -- or more utility in sitting at home watching Netflix instead of, say, manning a soup kitchen). \nI guess, like you said, there's still the issue of scale. Spending $1.5 billion on the 9/11 memorial piece is more wrong than going out for a fancy dinner (or commissioning a less extravagant piece), in the same sense that stealing your friend's car is worse than stealing a french fry off his plate.", ">\n\nAt the same time, art is an easy distraction when it comes time to criticize wasteful spending. \nPlenty more is wasted on projects that achieve far less (which is saying something) due to corruption, inefficiency, lack of oversight, etc. \nHow much is lost as a result of a financial system fluctuating for seemingly no reason on any given day? How much has been spent to support these institutions? How much of the problems we're concerned with were created as a direct result of these institutions and the lack of adequate regulation?\nI'm not saying your points aren't valid, nor that someone who's struggling in these communities shouldn't feel pissed off when they see this statue, but just that possibly as a result of art being what it is, it's easy to make it a symbol in a way that draws more attention than arguably far more relevant issues.", ">\n\nI want to be clear, I'm not coming out against public art (and frankly, I actually appreciate this humungous arm sculpture). I guess more than anything, I'm just playing devil's advocate or talking through some challenges I have with my own normative ethical framework. As much as I value beautiful things, it seems wrong to install a big, expensive, fuck-off statue when people might be living in tents on the same street. But at the same time, it feels wrong to say indulging in aesthetics is immoral as long as there's a single person who's not getting enough to eat. \nI agree though, I think there's a lot more waste in commerce than in art, and we don't really account for that waste because it's less visible and it's taking place in a sphere that's meant to be productive.", ">\n\nY’all really made a monument to MLK where his head is missing?", ">\n\nand based on a picture of him hugging his wife who he routinely cheated on. Everything this statue highlights and ignores is weird." ]

[ "Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”\n“If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.\n\nThe first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful.", ">\n\nThe first view I saw of it looked like two arms holding up the biggest butt log in history.", ">\n\nRandy Marsh was here", ">\n\nI wonder how many Bonos that statue weighs 🤔", ">\n\nCourics! (I know what I'm talking about, im from zurich)", ">\n\nDoes Bono want the bitty?", ">\n\nEasy, Bono, that hurts the bitty!\nBono: BIT-TY!!", ">\n\nI’ll be honest it isn’t my taste, the MLK granite head in DC is much better.", ">\n\nThe head that is almost his whole body?", ">\n\n\"excuse me, sir. you're sitting on my body, which is also my face\"", ">\n\nIs butt legs?", ">\n\nButt is definitely legs.", ">\n\nIt's like a five-dimensional creature eating itself.\n\nEmbrace Boston, a nonprofit organization that works toward racial and economic justice and is a part of the Boston Foundation, helped provide resources and $10.5 million in funds, including a maintenance fund, for “The Embrace” and the Freedom Plaza.", ">\n\nDear god, think how far 10 mil could go toward education or helping homeless people or providing services to the addicted. This makes me pretty sick. It's both ugly and incomprehensible. Even a stick figure lets you know what it is.", ">\n\nThis. I understand the need to memorialize but it seems insensitive to sink millions into remembering the dead when that money could be used to help the living. If they are important then we should make sure to teach their history to younger generations, not build a statue many will never see. Malcolm Gadwell did a great episode these kind of situations and the dark reality of how those funds could be better implemented", ">\n\nI don’t necessarily disagree, but couldn’t we make this same argument for every dollar spent on arts or decoration or even personal luxuries?", ">\n\nIt's the classic slippery slope situation. Again, I do not do this argument as much justice as Malcolm Gladwell does in his podcast episode but it's less about expenses and more about extreme expenses like what this statue cost. His example is of the 9/11 memorial and the cost and extreme disruption it caused NYC and the hard question of its true worth; it's an extremely interesting conversation and I encourage people to give it a listen. \nArt will also always be tricky because of the influx of wealthy people who use it as a tool for tax write-offs and consolidating wealth. It's tricky, but I'm just curious to know more. Who donated the money for this statue, why did they donate, did they know this was were the money was going towards, and so on. I'd rather know how these decisions came about rather than just be mad at the consequences; without that insight the same mistakes will keep getting made.", ">\n\nI don't think it's necessarily a slippery slope, I'm just asking us to apply the principle consistently. Any dollar spent on luxury or decoration could instead be spent providing necessities to people who lack them, and if it's immoral to spend $10 million on some humungous arm statue, isn't it also immoral to spend $10,000 on a more modest piece of public art?\nThis is an old response to (or component of) utilitarianism: something like, can we really justify buying new clothes or going on vacations or even spending an extra few bucks on an expensive coffee drink when that money could be feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, providing life-saving medical care, etc.\nAnd I'm not totally sure how to square this. Intuitively, it seems kind of wrong to say we ought to eschew all luxury -- that just about anything we do beyond the satisfaction of our needs is wrong as long as there are people whose needs aren't met. A lot of the texture of life comes from little excesses here and there, and any normative ethical theory that demands us to give up all but the barest comforts just feels wrong (or at the very least, it seems too demanding to really be of much practical use). But at the same time, if we believe an act is good inasmuch as it maximizes happiness or reduces suffering, it does seem to follow that just about any leisure or luxury we engage in is immoral (unless you genuinely think there's more utility in, say, chugging a latte than in providing a malaria shot to some kid in rural Nigeria -- or more utility in sitting at home watching Netflix instead of, say, manning a soup kitchen). \nI guess, like you said, there's still the issue of scale. Spending $1.5 billion on the 9/11 memorial piece is more wrong than going out for a fancy dinner (or commissioning a less extravagant piece), in the same sense that stealing your friend's car is worse than stealing a french fry off his plate.", ">\n\nAt the same time, art is an easy distraction when it comes time to criticize wasteful spending. \nPlenty more is wasted on projects that achieve far less (which is saying something) due to corruption, inefficiency, lack of oversight, etc. \nHow much is lost as a result of a financial system fluctuating for seemingly no reason on any given day? How much has been spent to support these institutions? How much of the problems we're concerned with were created as a direct result of these institutions and the lack of adequate regulation?\nI'm not saying your points aren't valid, nor that someone who's struggling in these communities shouldn't feel pissed off when they see this statue, but just that possibly as a result of art being what it is, it's easy to make it a symbol in a way that draws more attention than arguably far more relevant issues.", ">\n\nI want to be clear, I'm not coming out against public art (and frankly, I actually appreciate this humungous arm sculpture). I guess more than anything, I'm just playing devil's advocate or talking through some challenges I have with my own normative ethical framework. As much as I value beautiful things, it seems wrong to install a big, expensive, fuck-off statue when people might be living in tents on the same street. But at the same time, it feels wrong to say indulging in aesthetics is immoral as long as there's a single person who's not getting enough to eat. \nI agree though, I think there's a lot more waste in commerce than in art, and we don't really account for that waste because it's less visible and it's taking place in a sphere that's meant to be productive.", ">\n\nY’all really made a monument to MLK where his head is missing?", ">\n\nand based on a picture of him hugging his wife who he routinely cheated on. Everything this statue highlights and ignores is weird.", ">\n\nAnd, to add that last little bit of insult to injury, it doesn't even get the pose right from the picture." ]

[ "Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”\n“If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.\n\nThe first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful.", ">\n\nThe first view I saw of it looked like two arms holding up the biggest butt log in history.", ">\n\nRandy Marsh was here", ">\n\nI wonder how many Bonos that statue weighs 🤔", ">\n\nCourics! (I know what I'm talking about, im from zurich)", ">\n\nDoes Bono want the bitty?", ">\n\nEasy, Bono, that hurts the bitty!\nBono: BIT-TY!!", ">\n\nI’ll be honest it isn’t my taste, the MLK granite head in DC is much better.", ">\n\nThe head that is almost his whole body?", ">\n\n\"excuse me, sir. you're sitting on my body, which is also my face\"", ">\n\nIs butt legs?", ">\n\nButt is definitely legs.", ">\n\nIt's like a five-dimensional creature eating itself.\n\nEmbrace Boston, a nonprofit organization that works toward racial and economic justice and is a part of the Boston Foundation, helped provide resources and $10.5 million in funds, including a maintenance fund, for “The Embrace” and the Freedom Plaza.", ">\n\nDear god, think how far 10 mil could go toward education or helping homeless people or providing services to the addicted. This makes me pretty sick. It's both ugly and incomprehensible. Even a stick figure lets you know what it is.", ">\n\nThis. I understand the need to memorialize but it seems insensitive to sink millions into remembering the dead when that money could be used to help the living. If they are important then we should make sure to teach their history to younger generations, not build a statue many will never see. Malcolm Gadwell did a great episode these kind of situations and the dark reality of how those funds could be better implemented", ">\n\nI don’t necessarily disagree, but couldn’t we make this same argument for every dollar spent on arts or decoration or even personal luxuries?", ">\n\nIt's the classic slippery slope situation. Again, I do not do this argument as much justice as Malcolm Gladwell does in his podcast episode but it's less about expenses and more about extreme expenses like what this statue cost. His example is of the 9/11 memorial and the cost and extreme disruption it caused NYC and the hard question of its true worth; it's an extremely interesting conversation and I encourage people to give it a listen. \nArt will also always be tricky because of the influx of wealthy people who use it as a tool for tax write-offs and consolidating wealth. It's tricky, but I'm just curious to know more. Who donated the money for this statue, why did they donate, did they know this was were the money was going towards, and so on. I'd rather know how these decisions came about rather than just be mad at the consequences; without that insight the same mistakes will keep getting made.", ">\n\nI don't think it's necessarily a slippery slope, I'm just asking us to apply the principle consistently. Any dollar spent on luxury or decoration could instead be spent providing necessities to people who lack them, and if it's immoral to spend $10 million on some humungous arm statue, isn't it also immoral to spend $10,000 on a more modest piece of public art?\nThis is an old response to (or component of) utilitarianism: something like, can we really justify buying new clothes or going on vacations or even spending an extra few bucks on an expensive coffee drink when that money could be feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, providing life-saving medical care, etc.\nAnd I'm not totally sure how to square this. Intuitively, it seems kind of wrong to say we ought to eschew all luxury -- that just about anything we do beyond the satisfaction of our needs is wrong as long as there are people whose needs aren't met. A lot of the texture of life comes from little excesses here and there, and any normative ethical theory that demands us to give up all but the barest comforts just feels wrong (or at the very least, it seems too demanding to really be of much practical use). But at the same time, if we believe an act is good inasmuch as it maximizes happiness or reduces suffering, it does seem to follow that just about any leisure or luxury we engage in is immoral (unless you genuinely think there's more utility in, say, chugging a latte than in providing a malaria shot to some kid in rural Nigeria -- or more utility in sitting at home watching Netflix instead of, say, manning a soup kitchen). \nI guess, like you said, there's still the issue of scale. Spending $1.5 billion on the 9/11 memorial piece is more wrong than going out for a fancy dinner (or commissioning a less extravagant piece), in the same sense that stealing your friend's car is worse than stealing a french fry off his plate.", ">\n\nAt the same time, art is an easy distraction when it comes time to criticize wasteful spending. \nPlenty more is wasted on projects that achieve far less (which is saying something) due to corruption, inefficiency, lack of oversight, etc. \nHow much is lost as a result of a financial system fluctuating for seemingly no reason on any given day? How much has been spent to support these institutions? How much of the problems we're concerned with were created as a direct result of these institutions and the lack of adequate regulation?\nI'm not saying your points aren't valid, nor that someone who's struggling in these communities shouldn't feel pissed off when they see this statue, but just that possibly as a result of art being what it is, it's easy to make it a symbol in a way that draws more attention than arguably far more relevant issues.", ">\n\nI want to be clear, I'm not coming out against public art (and frankly, I actually appreciate this humungous arm sculpture). I guess more than anything, I'm just playing devil's advocate or talking through some challenges I have with my own normative ethical framework. As much as I value beautiful things, it seems wrong to install a big, expensive, fuck-off statue when people might be living in tents on the same street. But at the same time, it feels wrong to say indulging in aesthetics is immoral as long as there's a single person who's not getting enough to eat. \nI agree though, I think there's a lot more waste in commerce than in art, and we don't really account for that waste because it's less visible and it's taking place in a sphere that's meant to be productive.", ">\n\nY’all really made a monument to MLK where his head is missing?", ">\n\nand based on a picture of him hugging his wife who he routinely cheated on. Everything this statue highlights and ignores is weird.", ">\n\nAnd, to add that last little bit of insult to injury, it doesn't even get the pose right from the picture.", ">\n\nIt makes more sense now that I see the photo that inspired it, but it's still odd looking and too large. It dominates the space." ]

[ "Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”\n“If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.\n\nThe first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful.", ">\n\nThe first view I saw of it looked like two arms holding up the biggest butt log in history.", ">\n\nRandy Marsh was here", ">\n\nI wonder how many Bonos that statue weighs 🤔", ">\n\nCourics! (I know what I'm talking about, im from zurich)", ">\n\nDoes Bono want the bitty?", ">\n\nEasy, Bono, that hurts the bitty!\nBono: BIT-TY!!", ">\n\nI’ll be honest it isn’t my taste, the MLK granite head in DC is much better.", ">\n\nThe head that is almost his whole body?", ">\n\n\"excuse me, sir. you're sitting on my body, which is also my face\"", ">\n\nIs butt legs?", ">\n\nButt is definitely legs.", ">\n\nIt's like a five-dimensional creature eating itself.\n\nEmbrace Boston, a nonprofit organization that works toward racial and economic justice and is a part of the Boston Foundation, helped provide resources and $10.5 million in funds, including a maintenance fund, for “The Embrace” and the Freedom Plaza.", ">\n\nDear god, think how far 10 mil could go toward education or helping homeless people or providing services to the addicted. This makes me pretty sick. It's both ugly and incomprehensible. Even a stick figure lets you know what it is.", ">\n\nThis. I understand the need to memorialize but it seems insensitive to sink millions into remembering the dead when that money could be used to help the living. If they are important then we should make sure to teach their history to younger generations, not build a statue many will never see. Malcolm Gadwell did a great episode these kind of situations and the dark reality of how those funds could be better implemented", ">\n\nI don’t necessarily disagree, but couldn’t we make this same argument for every dollar spent on arts or decoration or even personal luxuries?", ">\n\nIt's the classic slippery slope situation. Again, I do not do this argument as much justice as Malcolm Gladwell does in his podcast episode but it's less about expenses and more about extreme expenses like what this statue cost. His example is of the 9/11 memorial and the cost and extreme disruption it caused NYC and the hard question of its true worth; it's an extremely interesting conversation and I encourage people to give it a listen. \nArt will also always be tricky because of the influx of wealthy people who use it as a tool for tax write-offs and consolidating wealth. It's tricky, but I'm just curious to know more. Who donated the money for this statue, why did they donate, did they know this was were the money was going towards, and so on. I'd rather know how these decisions came about rather than just be mad at the consequences; without that insight the same mistakes will keep getting made.", ">\n\nI don't think it's necessarily a slippery slope, I'm just asking us to apply the principle consistently. Any dollar spent on luxury or decoration could instead be spent providing necessities to people who lack them, and if it's immoral to spend $10 million on some humungous arm statue, isn't it also immoral to spend $10,000 on a more modest piece of public art?\nThis is an old response to (or component of) utilitarianism: something like, can we really justify buying new clothes or going on vacations or even spending an extra few bucks on an expensive coffee drink when that money could be feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, providing life-saving medical care, etc.\nAnd I'm not totally sure how to square this. Intuitively, it seems kind of wrong to say we ought to eschew all luxury -- that just about anything we do beyond the satisfaction of our needs is wrong as long as there are people whose needs aren't met. A lot of the texture of life comes from little excesses here and there, and any normative ethical theory that demands us to give up all but the barest comforts just feels wrong (or at the very least, it seems too demanding to really be of much practical use). But at the same time, if we believe an act is good inasmuch as it maximizes happiness or reduces suffering, it does seem to follow that just about any leisure or luxury we engage in is immoral (unless you genuinely think there's more utility in, say, chugging a latte than in providing a malaria shot to some kid in rural Nigeria -- or more utility in sitting at home watching Netflix instead of, say, manning a soup kitchen). \nI guess, like you said, there's still the issue of scale. Spending $1.5 billion on the 9/11 memorial piece is more wrong than going out for a fancy dinner (or commissioning a less extravagant piece), in the same sense that stealing your friend's car is worse than stealing a french fry off his plate.", ">\n\nAt the same time, art is an easy distraction when it comes time to criticize wasteful spending. \nPlenty more is wasted on projects that achieve far less (which is saying something) due to corruption, inefficiency, lack of oversight, etc. \nHow much is lost as a result of a financial system fluctuating for seemingly no reason on any given day? How much has been spent to support these institutions? How much of the problems we're concerned with were created as a direct result of these institutions and the lack of adequate regulation?\nI'm not saying your points aren't valid, nor that someone who's struggling in these communities shouldn't feel pissed off when they see this statue, but just that possibly as a result of art being what it is, it's easy to make it a symbol in a way that draws more attention than arguably far more relevant issues.", ">\n\nI want to be clear, I'm not coming out against public art (and frankly, I actually appreciate this humungous arm sculpture). I guess more than anything, I'm just playing devil's advocate or talking through some challenges I have with my own normative ethical framework. As much as I value beautiful things, it seems wrong to install a big, expensive, fuck-off statue when people might be living in tents on the same street. But at the same time, it feels wrong to say indulging in aesthetics is immoral as long as there's a single person who's not getting enough to eat. \nI agree though, I think there's a lot more waste in commerce than in art, and we don't really account for that waste because it's less visible and it's taking place in a sphere that's meant to be productive.", ">\n\nY’all really made a monument to MLK where his head is missing?", ">\n\nand based on a picture of him hugging his wife who he routinely cheated on. Everything this statue highlights and ignores is weird.", ">\n\nAnd, to add that last little bit of insult to injury, it doesn't even get the pose right from the picture.", ">\n\nIt makes more sense now that I see the photo that inspired it, but it's still odd looking and too large. It dominates the space.", ">\n\nYou really like those fighters, don't you?" ]

[ "Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”\n“If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.\n\nThe first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful.", ">\n\nThe first view I saw of it looked like two arms holding up the biggest butt log in history.", ">\n\nRandy Marsh was here", ">\n\nI wonder how many Bonos that statue weighs 🤔", ">\n\nCourics! (I know what I'm talking about, im from zurich)", ">\n\nDoes Bono want the bitty?", ">\n\nEasy, Bono, that hurts the bitty!\nBono: BIT-TY!!", ">\n\nI’ll be honest it isn’t my taste, the MLK granite head in DC is much better.", ">\n\nThe head that is almost his whole body?", ">\n\n\"excuse me, sir. you're sitting on my body, which is also my face\"", ">\n\nIs butt legs?", ">\n\nButt is definitely legs.", ">\n\nIt's like a five-dimensional creature eating itself.\n\nEmbrace Boston, a nonprofit organization that works toward racial and economic justice and is a part of the Boston Foundation, helped provide resources and $10.5 million in funds, including a maintenance fund, for “The Embrace” and the Freedom Plaza.", ">\n\nDear god, think how far 10 mil could go toward education or helping homeless people or providing services to the addicted. This makes me pretty sick. It's both ugly and incomprehensible. Even a stick figure lets you know what it is.", ">\n\nThis. I understand the need to memorialize but it seems insensitive to sink millions into remembering the dead when that money could be used to help the living. If they are important then we should make sure to teach their history to younger generations, not build a statue many will never see. Malcolm Gadwell did a great episode these kind of situations and the dark reality of how those funds could be better implemented", ">\n\nI don’t necessarily disagree, but couldn’t we make this same argument for every dollar spent on arts or decoration or even personal luxuries?", ">\n\nIt's the classic slippery slope situation. Again, I do not do this argument as much justice as Malcolm Gladwell does in his podcast episode but it's less about expenses and more about extreme expenses like what this statue cost. His example is of the 9/11 memorial and the cost and extreme disruption it caused NYC and the hard question of its true worth; it's an extremely interesting conversation and I encourage people to give it a listen. \nArt will also always be tricky because of the influx of wealthy people who use it as a tool for tax write-offs and consolidating wealth. It's tricky, but I'm just curious to know more. Who donated the money for this statue, why did they donate, did they know this was were the money was going towards, and so on. I'd rather know how these decisions came about rather than just be mad at the consequences; without that insight the same mistakes will keep getting made.", ">\n\nI don't think it's necessarily a slippery slope, I'm just asking us to apply the principle consistently. Any dollar spent on luxury or decoration could instead be spent providing necessities to people who lack them, and if it's immoral to spend $10 million on some humungous arm statue, isn't it also immoral to spend $10,000 on a more modest piece of public art?\nThis is an old response to (or component of) utilitarianism: something like, can we really justify buying new clothes or going on vacations or even spending an extra few bucks on an expensive coffee drink when that money could be feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, providing life-saving medical care, etc.\nAnd I'm not totally sure how to square this. Intuitively, it seems kind of wrong to say we ought to eschew all luxury -- that just about anything we do beyond the satisfaction of our needs is wrong as long as there are people whose needs aren't met. A lot of the texture of life comes from little excesses here and there, and any normative ethical theory that demands us to give up all but the barest comforts just feels wrong (or at the very least, it seems too demanding to really be of much practical use). But at the same time, if we believe an act is good inasmuch as it maximizes happiness or reduces suffering, it does seem to follow that just about any leisure or luxury we engage in is immoral (unless you genuinely think there's more utility in, say, chugging a latte than in providing a malaria shot to some kid in rural Nigeria -- or more utility in sitting at home watching Netflix instead of, say, manning a soup kitchen). \nI guess, like you said, there's still the issue of scale. Spending $1.5 billion on the 9/11 memorial piece is more wrong than going out for a fancy dinner (or commissioning a less extravagant piece), in the same sense that stealing your friend's car is worse than stealing a french fry off his plate.", ">\n\nAt the same time, art is an easy distraction when it comes time to criticize wasteful spending. \nPlenty more is wasted on projects that achieve far less (which is saying something) due to corruption, inefficiency, lack of oversight, etc. \nHow much is lost as a result of a financial system fluctuating for seemingly no reason on any given day? How much has been spent to support these institutions? How much of the problems we're concerned with were created as a direct result of these institutions and the lack of adequate regulation?\nI'm not saying your points aren't valid, nor that someone who's struggling in these communities shouldn't feel pissed off when they see this statue, but just that possibly as a result of art being what it is, it's easy to make it a symbol in a way that draws more attention than arguably far more relevant issues.", ">\n\nI want to be clear, I'm not coming out against public art (and frankly, I actually appreciate this humungous arm sculpture). I guess more than anything, I'm just playing devil's advocate or talking through some challenges I have with my own normative ethical framework. As much as I value beautiful things, it seems wrong to install a big, expensive, fuck-off statue when people might be living in tents on the same street. But at the same time, it feels wrong to say indulging in aesthetics is immoral as long as there's a single person who's not getting enough to eat. \nI agree though, I think there's a lot more waste in commerce than in art, and we don't really account for that waste because it's less visible and it's taking place in a sphere that's meant to be productive.", ">\n\nY’all really made a monument to MLK where his head is missing?", ">\n\nand based on a picture of him hugging his wife who he routinely cheated on. Everything this statue highlights and ignores is weird.", ">\n\nAnd, to add that last little bit of insult to injury, it doesn't even get the pose right from the picture.", ">\n\nIt makes more sense now that I see the photo that inspired it, but it's still odd looking and too large. It dominates the space.", ">\n\nYou really like those fighters, don't you?", ">\n\nI mean if you’re talking about dominating space you really can’t avoid discussing the tactical advantages that the F-104 Starfighter brings to the table" ]

[ "Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”\n“If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.\n\nThe first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful.", ">\n\nThe first view I saw of it looked like two arms holding up the biggest butt log in history.", ">\n\nRandy Marsh was here", ">\n\nI wonder how many Bonos that statue weighs 🤔", ">\n\nCourics! (I know what I'm talking about, im from zurich)", ">\n\nDoes Bono want the bitty?", ">\n\nEasy, Bono, that hurts the bitty!\nBono: BIT-TY!!", ">\n\nI’ll be honest it isn’t my taste, the MLK granite head in DC is much better.", ">\n\nThe head that is almost his whole body?", ">\n\n\"excuse me, sir. you're sitting on my body, which is also my face\"", ">\n\nIs butt legs?", ">\n\nButt is definitely legs.", ">\n\nIt's like a five-dimensional creature eating itself.\n\nEmbrace Boston, a nonprofit organization that works toward racial and economic justice and is a part of the Boston Foundation, helped provide resources and $10.5 million in funds, including a maintenance fund, for “The Embrace” and the Freedom Plaza.", ">\n\nDear god, think how far 10 mil could go toward education or helping homeless people or providing services to the addicted. This makes me pretty sick. It's both ugly and incomprehensible. Even a stick figure lets you know what it is.", ">\n\nThis. I understand the need to memorialize but it seems insensitive to sink millions into remembering the dead when that money could be used to help the living. If they are important then we should make sure to teach their history to younger generations, not build a statue many will never see. Malcolm Gadwell did a great episode these kind of situations and the dark reality of how those funds could be better implemented", ">\n\nI don’t necessarily disagree, but couldn’t we make this same argument for every dollar spent on arts or decoration or even personal luxuries?", ">\n\nIt's the classic slippery slope situation. Again, I do not do this argument as much justice as Malcolm Gladwell does in his podcast episode but it's less about expenses and more about extreme expenses like what this statue cost. His example is of the 9/11 memorial and the cost and extreme disruption it caused NYC and the hard question of its true worth; it's an extremely interesting conversation and I encourage people to give it a listen. \nArt will also always be tricky because of the influx of wealthy people who use it as a tool for tax write-offs and consolidating wealth. It's tricky, but I'm just curious to know more. Who donated the money for this statue, why did they donate, did they know this was were the money was going towards, and so on. I'd rather know how these decisions came about rather than just be mad at the consequences; without that insight the same mistakes will keep getting made.", ">\n\nI don't think it's necessarily a slippery slope, I'm just asking us to apply the principle consistently. Any dollar spent on luxury or decoration could instead be spent providing necessities to people who lack them, and if it's immoral to spend $10 million on some humungous arm statue, isn't it also immoral to spend $10,000 on a more modest piece of public art?\nThis is an old response to (or component of) utilitarianism: something like, can we really justify buying new clothes or going on vacations or even spending an extra few bucks on an expensive coffee drink when that money could be feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, providing life-saving medical care, etc.\nAnd I'm not totally sure how to square this. Intuitively, it seems kind of wrong to say we ought to eschew all luxury -- that just about anything we do beyond the satisfaction of our needs is wrong as long as there are people whose needs aren't met. A lot of the texture of life comes from little excesses here and there, and any normative ethical theory that demands us to give up all but the barest comforts just feels wrong (or at the very least, it seems too demanding to really be of much practical use). But at the same time, if we believe an act is good inasmuch as it maximizes happiness or reduces suffering, it does seem to follow that just about any leisure or luxury we engage in is immoral (unless you genuinely think there's more utility in, say, chugging a latte than in providing a malaria shot to some kid in rural Nigeria -- or more utility in sitting at home watching Netflix instead of, say, manning a soup kitchen). \nI guess, like you said, there's still the issue of scale. Spending $1.5 billion on the 9/11 memorial piece is more wrong than going out for a fancy dinner (or commissioning a less extravagant piece), in the same sense that stealing your friend's car is worse than stealing a french fry off his plate.", ">\n\nAt the same time, art is an easy distraction when it comes time to criticize wasteful spending. \nPlenty more is wasted on projects that achieve far less (which is saying something) due to corruption, inefficiency, lack of oversight, etc. \nHow much is lost as a result of a financial system fluctuating for seemingly no reason on any given day? How much has been spent to support these institutions? How much of the problems we're concerned with were created as a direct result of these institutions and the lack of adequate regulation?\nI'm not saying your points aren't valid, nor that someone who's struggling in these communities shouldn't feel pissed off when they see this statue, but just that possibly as a result of art being what it is, it's easy to make it a symbol in a way that draws more attention than arguably far more relevant issues.", ">\n\nI want to be clear, I'm not coming out against public art (and frankly, I actually appreciate this humungous arm sculpture). I guess more than anything, I'm just playing devil's advocate or talking through some challenges I have with my own normative ethical framework. As much as I value beautiful things, it seems wrong to install a big, expensive, fuck-off statue when people might be living in tents on the same street. But at the same time, it feels wrong to say indulging in aesthetics is immoral as long as there's a single person who's not getting enough to eat. \nI agree though, I think there's a lot more waste in commerce than in art, and we don't really account for that waste because it's less visible and it's taking place in a sphere that's meant to be productive.", ">\n\nY’all really made a monument to MLK where his head is missing?", ">\n\nand based on a picture of him hugging his wife who he routinely cheated on. Everything this statue highlights and ignores is weird.", ">\n\nAnd, to add that last little bit of insult to injury, it doesn't even get the pose right from the picture.", ">\n\nIt makes more sense now that I see the photo that inspired it, but it's still odd looking and too large. It dominates the space.", ">\n\nYou really like those fighters, don't you?", ">\n\nI mean if you’re talking about dominating space you really can’t avoid discussing the tactical advantages that the F-104 Starfighter brings to the table", ">\n\nAt quick glance it looks like hands covering an asshole (excuse my language)" ]

[ "Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”\n“If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.\n\nThe first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful.", ">\n\nThe first view I saw of it looked like two arms holding up the biggest butt log in history.", ">\n\nRandy Marsh was here", ">\n\nI wonder how many Bonos that statue weighs 🤔", ">\n\nCourics! (I know what I'm talking about, im from zurich)", ">\n\nDoes Bono want the bitty?", ">\n\nEasy, Bono, that hurts the bitty!\nBono: BIT-TY!!", ">\n\nI’ll be honest it isn’t my taste, the MLK granite head in DC is much better.", ">\n\nThe head that is almost his whole body?", ">\n\n\"excuse me, sir. you're sitting on my body, which is also my face\"", ">\n\nIs butt legs?", ">\n\nButt is definitely legs.", ">\n\nIt's like a five-dimensional creature eating itself.\n\nEmbrace Boston, a nonprofit organization that works toward racial and economic justice and is a part of the Boston Foundation, helped provide resources and $10.5 million in funds, including a maintenance fund, for “The Embrace” and the Freedom Plaza.", ">\n\nDear god, think how far 10 mil could go toward education or helping homeless people or providing services to the addicted. This makes me pretty sick. It's both ugly and incomprehensible. Even a stick figure lets you know what it is.", ">\n\nThis. I understand the need to memorialize but it seems insensitive to sink millions into remembering the dead when that money could be used to help the living. If they are important then we should make sure to teach their history to younger generations, not build a statue many will never see. Malcolm Gadwell did a great episode these kind of situations and the dark reality of how those funds could be better implemented", ">\n\nI don’t necessarily disagree, but couldn’t we make this same argument for every dollar spent on arts or decoration or even personal luxuries?", ">\n\nIt's the classic slippery slope situation. Again, I do not do this argument as much justice as Malcolm Gladwell does in his podcast episode but it's less about expenses and more about extreme expenses like what this statue cost. His example is of the 9/11 memorial and the cost and extreme disruption it caused NYC and the hard question of its true worth; it's an extremely interesting conversation and I encourage people to give it a listen. \nArt will also always be tricky because of the influx of wealthy people who use it as a tool for tax write-offs and consolidating wealth. It's tricky, but I'm just curious to know more. Who donated the money for this statue, why did they donate, did they know this was were the money was going towards, and so on. I'd rather know how these decisions came about rather than just be mad at the consequences; without that insight the same mistakes will keep getting made.", ">\n\nI don't think it's necessarily a slippery slope, I'm just asking us to apply the principle consistently. Any dollar spent on luxury or decoration could instead be spent providing necessities to people who lack them, and if it's immoral to spend $10 million on some humungous arm statue, isn't it also immoral to spend $10,000 on a more modest piece of public art?\nThis is an old response to (or component of) utilitarianism: something like, can we really justify buying new clothes or going on vacations or even spending an extra few bucks on an expensive coffee drink when that money could be feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, providing life-saving medical care, etc.\nAnd I'm not totally sure how to square this. Intuitively, it seems kind of wrong to say we ought to eschew all luxury -- that just about anything we do beyond the satisfaction of our needs is wrong as long as there are people whose needs aren't met. A lot of the texture of life comes from little excesses here and there, and any normative ethical theory that demands us to give up all but the barest comforts just feels wrong (or at the very least, it seems too demanding to really be of much practical use). But at the same time, if we believe an act is good inasmuch as it maximizes happiness or reduces suffering, it does seem to follow that just about any leisure or luxury we engage in is immoral (unless you genuinely think there's more utility in, say, chugging a latte than in providing a malaria shot to some kid in rural Nigeria -- or more utility in sitting at home watching Netflix instead of, say, manning a soup kitchen). \nI guess, like you said, there's still the issue of scale. Spending $1.5 billion on the 9/11 memorial piece is more wrong than going out for a fancy dinner (or commissioning a less extravagant piece), in the same sense that stealing your friend's car is worse than stealing a french fry off his plate.", ">\n\nAt the same time, art is an easy distraction when it comes time to criticize wasteful spending. \nPlenty more is wasted on projects that achieve far less (which is saying something) due to corruption, inefficiency, lack of oversight, etc. \nHow much is lost as a result of a financial system fluctuating for seemingly no reason on any given day? How much has been spent to support these institutions? How much of the problems we're concerned with were created as a direct result of these institutions and the lack of adequate regulation?\nI'm not saying your points aren't valid, nor that someone who's struggling in these communities shouldn't feel pissed off when they see this statue, but just that possibly as a result of art being what it is, it's easy to make it a symbol in a way that draws more attention than arguably far more relevant issues.", ">\n\nI want to be clear, I'm not coming out against public art (and frankly, I actually appreciate this humungous arm sculpture). I guess more than anything, I'm just playing devil's advocate or talking through some challenges I have with my own normative ethical framework. As much as I value beautiful things, it seems wrong to install a big, expensive, fuck-off statue when people might be living in tents on the same street. But at the same time, it feels wrong to say indulging in aesthetics is immoral as long as there's a single person who's not getting enough to eat. \nI agree though, I think there's a lot more waste in commerce than in art, and we don't really account for that waste because it's less visible and it's taking place in a sphere that's meant to be productive.", ">\n\nY’all really made a monument to MLK where his head is missing?", ">\n\nand based on a picture of him hugging his wife who he routinely cheated on. Everything this statue highlights and ignores is weird.", ">\n\nAnd, to add that last little bit of insult to injury, it doesn't even get the pose right from the picture.", ">\n\nIt makes more sense now that I see the photo that inspired it, but it's still odd looking and too large. It dominates the space.", ">\n\nYou really like those fighters, don't you?", ">\n\nI mean if you’re talking about dominating space you really can’t avoid discussing the tactical advantages that the F-104 Starfighter brings to the table", ">\n\nAt quick glance it looks like hands covering an asshole (excuse my language)", ">\n\nIt's Reddit, you're excused." ]

[ "Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”\n“If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.\n\nThe first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful.", ">\n\nThe first view I saw of it looked like two arms holding up the biggest butt log in history.", ">\n\nRandy Marsh was here", ">\n\nI wonder how many Bonos that statue weighs 🤔", ">\n\nCourics! (I know what I'm talking about, im from zurich)", ">\n\nDoes Bono want the bitty?", ">\n\nEasy, Bono, that hurts the bitty!\nBono: BIT-TY!!", ">\n\nI’ll be honest it isn’t my taste, the MLK granite head in DC is much better.", ">\n\nThe head that is almost his whole body?", ">\n\n\"excuse me, sir. you're sitting on my body, which is also my face\"", ">\n\nIs butt legs?", ">\n\nButt is definitely legs.", ">\n\nIt's like a five-dimensional creature eating itself.\n\nEmbrace Boston, a nonprofit organization that works toward racial and economic justice and is a part of the Boston Foundation, helped provide resources and $10.5 million in funds, including a maintenance fund, for “The Embrace” and the Freedom Plaza.", ">\n\nDear god, think how far 10 mil could go toward education or helping homeless people or providing services to the addicted. This makes me pretty sick. It's both ugly and incomprehensible. Even a stick figure lets you know what it is.", ">\n\nThis. I understand the need to memorialize but it seems insensitive to sink millions into remembering the dead when that money could be used to help the living. If they are important then we should make sure to teach their history to younger generations, not build a statue many will never see. Malcolm Gadwell did a great episode these kind of situations and the dark reality of how those funds could be better implemented", ">\n\nI don’t necessarily disagree, but couldn’t we make this same argument for every dollar spent on arts or decoration or even personal luxuries?", ">\n\nIt's the classic slippery slope situation. Again, I do not do this argument as much justice as Malcolm Gladwell does in his podcast episode but it's less about expenses and more about extreme expenses like what this statue cost. His example is of the 9/11 memorial and the cost and extreme disruption it caused NYC and the hard question of its true worth; it's an extremely interesting conversation and I encourage people to give it a listen. \nArt will also always be tricky because of the influx of wealthy people who use it as a tool for tax write-offs and consolidating wealth. It's tricky, but I'm just curious to know more. Who donated the money for this statue, why did they donate, did they know this was were the money was going towards, and so on. I'd rather know how these decisions came about rather than just be mad at the consequences; without that insight the same mistakes will keep getting made.", ">\n\nI don't think it's necessarily a slippery slope, I'm just asking us to apply the principle consistently. Any dollar spent on luxury or decoration could instead be spent providing necessities to people who lack them, and if it's immoral to spend $10 million on some humungous arm statue, isn't it also immoral to spend $10,000 on a more modest piece of public art?\nThis is an old response to (or component of) utilitarianism: something like, can we really justify buying new clothes or going on vacations or even spending an extra few bucks on an expensive coffee drink when that money could be feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, providing life-saving medical care, etc.\nAnd I'm not totally sure how to square this. Intuitively, it seems kind of wrong to say we ought to eschew all luxury -- that just about anything we do beyond the satisfaction of our needs is wrong as long as there are people whose needs aren't met. A lot of the texture of life comes from little excesses here and there, and any normative ethical theory that demands us to give up all but the barest comforts just feels wrong (or at the very least, it seems too demanding to really be of much practical use). But at the same time, if we believe an act is good inasmuch as it maximizes happiness or reduces suffering, it does seem to follow that just about any leisure or luxury we engage in is immoral (unless you genuinely think there's more utility in, say, chugging a latte than in providing a malaria shot to some kid in rural Nigeria -- or more utility in sitting at home watching Netflix instead of, say, manning a soup kitchen). \nI guess, like you said, there's still the issue of scale. Spending $1.5 billion on the 9/11 memorial piece is more wrong than going out for a fancy dinner (or commissioning a less extravagant piece), in the same sense that stealing your friend's car is worse than stealing a french fry off his plate.", ">\n\nAt the same time, art is an easy distraction when it comes time to criticize wasteful spending. \nPlenty more is wasted on projects that achieve far less (which is saying something) due to corruption, inefficiency, lack of oversight, etc. \nHow much is lost as a result of a financial system fluctuating for seemingly no reason on any given day? How much has been spent to support these institutions? How much of the problems we're concerned with were created as a direct result of these institutions and the lack of adequate regulation?\nI'm not saying your points aren't valid, nor that someone who's struggling in these communities shouldn't feel pissed off when they see this statue, but just that possibly as a result of art being what it is, it's easy to make it a symbol in a way that draws more attention than arguably far more relevant issues.", ">\n\nI want to be clear, I'm not coming out against public art (and frankly, I actually appreciate this humungous arm sculpture). I guess more than anything, I'm just playing devil's advocate or talking through some challenges I have with my own normative ethical framework. As much as I value beautiful things, it seems wrong to install a big, expensive, fuck-off statue when people might be living in tents on the same street. But at the same time, it feels wrong to say indulging in aesthetics is immoral as long as there's a single person who's not getting enough to eat. \nI agree though, I think there's a lot more waste in commerce than in art, and we don't really account for that waste because it's less visible and it's taking place in a sphere that's meant to be productive.", ">\n\nY’all really made a monument to MLK where his head is missing?", ">\n\nand based on a picture of him hugging his wife who he routinely cheated on. Everything this statue highlights and ignores is weird.", ">\n\nAnd, to add that last little bit of insult to injury, it doesn't even get the pose right from the picture.", ">\n\nIt makes more sense now that I see the photo that inspired it, but it's still odd looking and too large. It dominates the space.", ">\n\nYou really like those fighters, don't you?", ">\n\nI mean if you’re talking about dominating space you really can’t avoid discussing the tactical advantages that the F-104 Starfighter brings to the table", ">\n\nAt quick glance it looks like hands covering an asshole (excuse my language)", ">\n\nIt's Reddit, you're excused.", ">\n\n\"MLK monument has Boston up in arms\"\ni mean, c'mon - it was right there" ]

[ "Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”\n“If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.\n\nThe first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful.", ">\n\nThe first view I saw of it looked like two arms holding up the biggest butt log in history.", ">\n\nRandy Marsh was here", ">\n\nI wonder how many Bonos that statue weighs 🤔", ">\n\nCourics! (I know what I'm talking about, im from zurich)", ">\n\nDoes Bono want the bitty?", ">\n\nEasy, Bono, that hurts the bitty!\nBono: BIT-TY!!", ">\n\nI’ll be honest it isn’t my taste, the MLK granite head in DC is much better.", ">\n\nThe head that is almost his whole body?", ">\n\n\"excuse me, sir. you're sitting on my body, which is also my face\"", ">\n\nIs butt legs?", ">\n\nButt is definitely legs.", ">\n\nIt's like a five-dimensional creature eating itself.\n\nEmbrace Boston, a nonprofit organization that works toward racial and economic justice and is a part of the Boston Foundation, helped provide resources and $10.5 million in funds, including a maintenance fund, for “The Embrace” and the Freedom Plaza.", ">\n\nDear god, think how far 10 mil could go toward education or helping homeless people or providing services to the addicted. This makes me pretty sick. It's both ugly and incomprehensible. Even a stick figure lets you know what it is.", ">\n\nThis. I understand the need to memorialize but it seems insensitive to sink millions into remembering the dead when that money could be used to help the living. If they are important then we should make sure to teach their history to younger generations, not build a statue many will never see. Malcolm Gadwell did a great episode these kind of situations and the dark reality of how those funds could be better implemented", ">\n\nI don’t necessarily disagree, but couldn’t we make this same argument for every dollar spent on arts or decoration or even personal luxuries?", ">\n\nIt's the classic slippery slope situation. Again, I do not do this argument as much justice as Malcolm Gladwell does in his podcast episode but it's less about expenses and more about extreme expenses like what this statue cost. His example is of the 9/11 memorial and the cost and extreme disruption it caused NYC and the hard question of its true worth; it's an extremely interesting conversation and I encourage people to give it a listen. \nArt will also always be tricky because of the influx of wealthy people who use it as a tool for tax write-offs and consolidating wealth. It's tricky, but I'm just curious to know more. Who donated the money for this statue, why did they donate, did they know this was were the money was going towards, and so on. I'd rather know how these decisions came about rather than just be mad at the consequences; without that insight the same mistakes will keep getting made.", ">\n\nI don't think it's necessarily a slippery slope, I'm just asking us to apply the principle consistently. Any dollar spent on luxury or decoration could instead be spent providing necessities to people who lack them, and if it's immoral to spend $10 million on some humungous arm statue, isn't it also immoral to spend $10,000 on a more modest piece of public art?\nThis is an old response to (or component of) utilitarianism: something like, can we really justify buying new clothes or going on vacations or even spending an extra few bucks on an expensive coffee drink when that money could be feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, providing life-saving medical care, etc.\nAnd I'm not totally sure how to square this. Intuitively, it seems kind of wrong to say we ought to eschew all luxury -- that just about anything we do beyond the satisfaction of our needs is wrong as long as there are people whose needs aren't met. A lot of the texture of life comes from little excesses here and there, and any normative ethical theory that demands us to give up all but the barest comforts just feels wrong (or at the very least, it seems too demanding to really be of much practical use). But at the same time, if we believe an act is good inasmuch as it maximizes happiness or reduces suffering, it does seem to follow that just about any leisure or luxury we engage in is immoral (unless you genuinely think there's more utility in, say, chugging a latte than in providing a malaria shot to some kid in rural Nigeria -- or more utility in sitting at home watching Netflix instead of, say, manning a soup kitchen). \nI guess, like you said, there's still the issue of scale. Spending $1.5 billion on the 9/11 memorial piece is more wrong than going out for a fancy dinner (or commissioning a less extravagant piece), in the same sense that stealing your friend's car is worse than stealing a french fry off his plate.", ">\n\nAt the same time, art is an easy distraction when it comes time to criticize wasteful spending. \nPlenty more is wasted on projects that achieve far less (which is saying something) due to corruption, inefficiency, lack of oversight, etc. \nHow much is lost as a result of a financial system fluctuating for seemingly no reason on any given day? How much has been spent to support these institutions? How much of the problems we're concerned with were created as a direct result of these institutions and the lack of adequate regulation?\nI'm not saying your points aren't valid, nor that someone who's struggling in these communities shouldn't feel pissed off when they see this statue, but just that possibly as a result of art being what it is, it's easy to make it a symbol in a way that draws more attention than arguably far more relevant issues.", ">\n\nI want to be clear, I'm not coming out against public art (and frankly, I actually appreciate this humungous arm sculpture). I guess more than anything, I'm just playing devil's advocate or talking through some challenges I have with my own normative ethical framework. As much as I value beautiful things, it seems wrong to install a big, expensive, fuck-off statue when people might be living in tents on the same street. But at the same time, it feels wrong to say indulging in aesthetics is immoral as long as there's a single person who's not getting enough to eat. \nI agree though, I think there's a lot more waste in commerce than in art, and we don't really account for that waste because it's less visible and it's taking place in a sphere that's meant to be productive.", ">\n\nY’all really made a monument to MLK where his head is missing?", ">\n\nand based on a picture of him hugging his wife who he routinely cheated on. Everything this statue highlights and ignores is weird.", ">\n\nAnd, to add that last little bit of insult to injury, it doesn't even get the pose right from the picture.", ">\n\nIt makes more sense now that I see the photo that inspired it, but it's still odd looking and too large. It dominates the space.", ">\n\nYou really like those fighters, don't you?", ">\n\nI mean if you’re talking about dominating space you really can’t avoid discussing the tactical advantages that the F-104 Starfighter brings to the table", ">\n\nAt quick glance it looks like hands covering an asshole (excuse my language)", ">\n\nIt's Reddit, you're excused.", ">\n\n\"MLK monument has Boston up in arms\"\ni mean, c'mon - it was right there", ">\n\nDid they have like a mock prototype before building this thing? No one sat there and said, “maybe this doesn’t look all that great.”" ]

[ "Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”\n“If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.\n\nThe first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful.", ">\n\nThe first view I saw of it looked like two arms holding up the biggest butt log in history.", ">\n\nRandy Marsh was here", ">\n\nI wonder how many Bonos that statue weighs 🤔", ">\n\nCourics! (I know what I'm talking about, im from zurich)", ">\n\nDoes Bono want the bitty?", ">\n\nEasy, Bono, that hurts the bitty!\nBono: BIT-TY!!", ">\n\nI’ll be honest it isn’t my taste, the MLK granite head in DC is much better.", ">\n\nThe head that is almost his whole body?", ">\n\n\"excuse me, sir. you're sitting on my body, which is also my face\"", ">\n\nIs butt legs?", ">\n\nButt is definitely legs.", ">\n\nIt's like a five-dimensional creature eating itself.\n\nEmbrace Boston, a nonprofit organization that works toward racial and economic justice and is a part of the Boston Foundation, helped provide resources and $10.5 million in funds, including a maintenance fund, for “The Embrace” and the Freedom Plaza.", ">\n\nDear god, think how far 10 mil could go toward education or helping homeless people or providing services to the addicted. This makes me pretty sick. It's both ugly and incomprehensible. Even a stick figure lets you know what it is.", ">\n\nThis. I understand the need to memorialize but it seems insensitive to sink millions into remembering the dead when that money could be used to help the living. If they are important then we should make sure to teach their history to younger generations, not build a statue many will never see. Malcolm Gadwell did a great episode these kind of situations and the dark reality of how those funds could be better implemented", ">\n\nI don’t necessarily disagree, but couldn’t we make this same argument for every dollar spent on arts or decoration or even personal luxuries?", ">\n\nIt's the classic slippery slope situation. Again, I do not do this argument as much justice as Malcolm Gladwell does in his podcast episode but it's less about expenses and more about extreme expenses like what this statue cost. His example is of the 9/11 memorial and the cost and extreme disruption it caused NYC and the hard question of its true worth; it's an extremely interesting conversation and I encourage people to give it a listen. \nArt will also always be tricky because of the influx of wealthy people who use it as a tool for tax write-offs and consolidating wealth. It's tricky, but I'm just curious to know more. Who donated the money for this statue, why did they donate, did they know this was were the money was going towards, and so on. I'd rather know how these decisions came about rather than just be mad at the consequences; without that insight the same mistakes will keep getting made.", ">\n\nI don't think it's necessarily a slippery slope, I'm just asking us to apply the principle consistently. Any dollar spent on luxury or decoration could instead be spent providing necessities to people who lack them, and if it's immoral to spend $10 million on some humungous arm statue, isn't it also immoral to spend $10,000 on a more modest piece of public art?\nThis is an old response to (or component of) utilitarianism: something like, can we really justify buying new clothes or going on vacations or even spending an extra few bucks on an expensive coffee drink when that money could be feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, providing life-saving medical care, etc.\nAnd I'm not totally sure how to square this. Intuitively, it seems kind of wrong to say we ought to eschew all luxury -- that just about anything we do beyond the satisfaction of our needs is wrong as long as there are people whose needs aren't met. A lot of the texture of life comes from little excesses here and there, and any normative ethical theory that demands us to give up all but the barest comforts just feels wrong (or at the very least, it seems too demanding to really be of much practical use). But at the same time, if we believe an act is good inasmuch as it maximizes happiness or reduces suffering, it does seem to follow that just about any leisure or luxury we engage in is immoral (unless you genuinely think there's more utility in, say, chugging a latte than in providing a malaria shot to some kid in rural Nigeria -- or more utility in sitting at home watching Netflix instead of, say, manning a soup kitchen). \nI guess, like you said, there's still the issue of scale. Spending $1.5 billion on the 9/11 memorial piece is more wrong than going out for a fancy dinner (or commissioning a less extravagant piece), in the same sense that stealing your friend's car is worse than stealing a french fry off his plate.", ">\n\nAt the same time, art is an easy distraction when it comes time to criticize wasteful spending. \nPlenty more is wasted on projects that achieve far less (which is saying something) due to corruption, inefficiency, lack of oversight, etc. \nHow much is lost as a result of a financial system fluctuating for seemingly no reason on any given day? How much has been spent to support these institutions? How much of the problems we're concerned with were created as a direct result of these institutions and the lack of adequate regulation?\nI'm not saying your points aren't valid, nor that someone who's struggling in these communities shouldn't feel pissed off when they see this statue, but just that possibly as a result of art being what it is, it's easy to make it a symbol in a way that draws more attention than arguably far more relevant issues.", ">\n\nI want to be clear, I'm not coming out against public art (and frankly, I actually appreciate this humungous arm sculpture). I guess more than anything, I'm just playing devil's advocate or talking through some challenges I have with my own normative ethical framework. As much as I value beautiful things, it seems wrong to install a big, expensive, fuck-off statue when people might be living in tents on the same street. But at the same time, it feels wrong to say indulging in aesthetics is immoral as long as there's a single person who's not getting enough to eat. \nI agree though, I think there's a lot more waste in commerce than in art, and we don't really account for that waste because it's less visible and it's taking place in a sphere that's meant to be productive.", ">\n\nY’all really made a monument to MLK where his head is missing?", ">\n\nand based on a picture of him hugging his wife who he routinely cheated on. Everything this statue highlights and ignores is weird.", ">\n\nAnd, to add that last little bit of insult to injury, it doesn't even get the pose right from the picture.", ">\n\nIt makes more sense now that I see the photo that inspired it, but it's still odd looking and too large. It dominates the space.", ">\n\nYou really like those fighters, don't you?", ">\n\nI mean if you’re talking about dominating space you really can’t avoid discussing the tactical advantages that the F-104 Starfighter brings to the table", ">\n\nAt quick glance it looks like hands covering an asshole (excuse my language)", ">\n\nIt's Reddit, you're excused.", ">\n\n\"MLK monument has Boston up in arms\"\ni mean, c'mon - it was right there", ">\n\nDid they have like a mock prototype before building this thing? No one sat there and said, “maybe this doesn’t look all that great.”", ">\n\nMore than likely they did, and I guarantee all the mock-ups showed one specific angle where the art works. No one in charged thought to ask how it would look at different angles or just assumed it would make sense once you take in the whole thing. It’s also way easier to make a pitch and sway concerns to a small limited audience over the larger general public. \nAlso, I’d be money the mock-ups looked slightly different than the end result. Things change when reality strikes. Material cost change so things get scaled back, maybe there were other elements like lights or accent pieces to direct viewer’s eyes but got cut due to budget reasons. \nMore than likely though, the people in charge had no idea what “good” art is and just wanted something. There was no oversight, no real check ins, and anytime the artist said something it probably went in one ear and out the other. “Sounds good, just get it done”." ]

[ "Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”\n“If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.\n\nThe first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful.", ">\n\nThe first view I saw of it looked like two arms holding up the biggest butt log in history.", ">\n\nRandy Marsh was here", ">\n\nI wonder how many Bonos that statue weighs 🤔", ">\n\nCourics! (I know what I'm talking about, im from zurich)", ">\n\nDoes Bono want the bitty?", ">\n\nEasy, Bono, that hurts the bitty!\nBono: BIT-TY!!", ">\n\nI’ll be honest it isn’t my taste, the MLK granite head in DC is much better.", ">\n\nThe head that is almost his whole body?", ">\n\n\"excuse me, sir. you're sitting on my body, which is also my face\"", ">\n\nIs butt legs?", ">\n\nButt is definitely legs.", ">\n\nIt's like a five-dimensional creature eating itself.\n\nEmbrace Boston, a nonprofit organization that works toward racial and economic justice and is a part of the Boston Foundation, helped provide resources and $10.5 million in funds, including a maintenance fund, for “The Embrace” and the Freedom Plaza.", ">\n\nDear god, think how far 10 mil could go toward education or helping homeless people or providing services to the addicted. This makes me pretty sick. It's both ugly and incomprehensible. Even a stick figure lets you know what it is.", ">\n\nThis. I understand the need to memorialize but it seems insensitive to sink millions into remembering the dead when that money could be used to help the living. If they are important then we should make sure to teach their history to younger generations, not build a statue many will never see. Malcolm Gadwell did a great episode these kind of situations and the dark reality of how those funds could be better implemented", ">\n\nI don’t necessarily disagree, but couldn’t we make this same argument for every dollar spent on arts or decoration or even personal luxuries?", ">\n\nIt's the classic slippery slope situation. Again, I do not do this argument as much justice as Malcolm Gladwell does in his podcast episode but it's less about expenses and more about extreme expenses like what this statue cost. His example is of the 9/11 memorial and the cost and extreme disruption it caused NYC and the hard question of its true worth; it's an extremely interesting conversation and I encourage people to give it a listen. \nArt will also always be tricky because of the influx of wealthy people who use it as a tool for tax write-offs and consolidating wealth. It's tricky, but I'm just curious to know more. Who donated the money for this statue, why did they donate, did they know this was were the money was going towards, and so on. I'd rather know how these decisions came about rather than just be mad at the consequences; without that insight the same mistakes will keep getting made.", ">\n\nI don't think it's necessarily a slippery slope, I'm just asking us to apply the principle consistently. Any dollar spent on luxury or decoration could instead be spent providing necessities to people who lack them, and if it's immoral to spend $10 million on some humungous arm statue, isn't it also immoral to spend $10,000 on a more modest piece of public art?\nThis is an old response to (or component of) utilitarianism: something like, can we really justify buying new clothes or going on vacations or even spending an extra few bucks on an expensive coffee drink when that money could be feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, providing life-saving medical care, etc.\nAnd I'm not totally sure how to square this. Intuitively, it seems kind of wrong to say we ought to eschew all luxury -- that just about anything we do beyond the satisfaction of our needs is wrong as long as there are people whose needs aren't met. A lot of the texture of life comes from little excesses here and there, and any normative ethical theory that demands us to give up all but the barest comforts just feels wrong (or at the very least, it seems too demanding to really be of much practical use). But at the same time, if we believe an act is good inasmuch as it maximizes happiness or reduces suffering, it does seem to follow that just about any leisure or luxury we engage in is immoral (unless you genuinely think there's more utility in, say, chugging a latte than in providing a malaria shot to some kid in rural Nigeria -- or more utility in sitting at home watching Netflix instead of, say, manning a soup kitchen). \nI guess, like you said, there's still the issue of scale. Spending $1.5 billion on the 9/11 memorial piece is more wrong than going out for a fancy dinner (or commissioning a less extravagant piece), in the same sense that stealing your friend's car is worse than stealing a french fry off his plate.", ">\n\nAt the same time, art is an easy distraction when it comes time to criticize wasteful spending. \nPlenty more is wasted on projects that achieve far less (which is saying something) due to corruption, inefficiency, lack of oversight, etc. \nHow much is lost as a result of a financial system fluctuating for seemingly no reason on any given day? How much has been spent to support these institutions? How much of the problems we're concerned with were created as a direct result of these institutions and the lack of adequate regulation?\nI'm not saying your points aren't valid, nor that someone who's struggling in these communities shouldn't feel pissed off when they see this statue, but just that possibly as a result of art being what it is, it's easy to make it a symbol in a way that draws more attention than arguably far more relevant issues.", ">\n\nI want to be clear, I'm not coming out against public art (and frankly, I actually appreciate this humungous arm sculpture). I guess more than anything, I'm just playing devil's advocate or talking through some challenges I have with my own normative ethical framework. As much as I value beautiful things, it seems wrong to install a big, expensive, fuck-off statue when people might be living in tents on the same street. But at the same time, it feels wrong to say indulging in aesthetics is immoral as long as there's a single person who's not getting enough to eat. \nI agree though, I think there's a lot more waste in commerce than in art, and we don't really account for that waste because it's less visible and it's taking place in a sphere that's meant to be productive.", ">\n\nY’all really made a monument to MLK where his head is missing?", ">\n\nand based on a picture of him hugging his wife who he routinely cheated on. Everything this statue highlights and ignores is weird.", ">\n\nAnd, to add that last little bit of insult to injury, it doesn't even get the pose right from the picture.", ">\n\nIt makes more sense now that I see the photo that inspired it, but it's still odd looking and too large. It dominates the space.", ">\n\nYou really like those fighters, don't you?", ">\n\nI mean if you’re talking about dominating space you really can’t avoid discussing the tactical advantages that the F-104 Starfighter brings to the table", ">\n\nAt quick glance it looks like hands covering an asshole (excuse my language)", ">\n\nIt's Reddit, you're excused.", ">\n\n\"MLK monument has Boston up in arms\"\ni mean, c'mon - it was right there", ">\n\nDid they have like a mock prototype before building this thing? No one sat there and said, “maybe this doesn’t look all that great.”", ">\n\nMore than likely they did, and I guarantee all the mock-ups showed one specific angle where the art works. No one in charged thought to ask how it would look at different angles or just assumed it would make sense once you take in the whole thing. It’s also way easier to make a pitch and sway concerns to a small limited audience over the larger general public. \nAlso, I’d be money the mock-ups looked slightly different than the end result. Things change when reality strikes. Material cost change so things get scaled back, maybe there were other elements like lights or accent pieces to direct viewer’s eyes but got cut due to budget reasons. \nMore than likely though, the people in charge had no idea what “good” art is and just wanted something. There was no oversight, no real check ins, and anytime the artist said something it probably went in one ear and out the other. “Sounds good, just get it done”.", ">\n\nThe backstory to this and the artist, was on CBS Sunday Morning back in December. It should be on You Tube if anyone is interested. The aluminum cast that the assistants were polishing before it was dipped in bronze, looked a lot better; eventhough it reminded you of the \"Bean\" in Grant Park in Chicago. The final version doesn't even have the reflective finish the entry picture said it would.\nThe main problem for me, is that it's based off a picture of Dr. King that vast majority of people haven't seen, so wouldn't immediate associate with him. I think the artist was thinking more about his personal feelings, than how the general publoc could relate.\nThat being said, the last two finalists on that list were BEAUTIFUL and interactive. I just can't understand what the selection committee was thinking." ]

[ "Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”\n“If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.\n\nThe first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful.", ">\n\nThe first view I saw of it looked like two arms holding up the biggest butt log in history.", ">\n\nRandy Marsh was here", ">\n\nI wonder how many Bonos that statue weighs 🤔", ">\n\nCourics! (I know what I'm talking about, im from zurich)", ">\n\nDoes Bono want the bitty?", ">\n\nEasy, Bono, that hurts the bitty!\nBono: BIT-TY!!", ">\n\nI’ll be honest it isn’t my taste, the MLK granite head in DC is much better.", ">\n\nThe head that is almost his whole body?", ">\n\n\"excuse me, sir. you're sitting on my body, which is also my face\"", ">\n\nIs butt legs?", ">\n\nButt is definitely legs.", ">\n\nIt's like a five-dimensional creature eating itself.\n\nEmbrace Boston, a nonprofit organization that works toward racial and economic justice and is a part of the Boston Foundation, helped provide resources and $10.5 million in funds, including a maintenance fund, for “The Embrace” and the Freedom Plaza.", ">\n\nDear god, think how far 10 mil could go toward education or helping homeless people or providing services to the addicted. This makes me pretty sick. It's both ugly and incomprehensible. Even a stick figure lets you know what it is.", ">\n\nThis. I understand the need to memorialize but it seems insensitive to sink millions into remembering the dead when that money could be used to help the living. If they are important then we should make sure to teach their history to younger generations, not build a statue many will never see. Malcolm Gadwell did a great episode these kind of situations and the dark reality of how those funds could be better implemented", ">\n\nI don’t necessarily disagree, but couldn’t we make this same argument for every dollar spent on arts or decoration or even personal luxuries?", ">\n\nIt's the classic slippery slope situation. Again, I do not do this argument as much justice as Malcolm Gladwell does in his podcast episode but it's less about expenses and more about extreme expenses like what this statue cost. His example is of the 9/11 memorial and the cost and extreme disruption it caused NYC and the hard question of its true worth; it's an extremely interesting conversation and I encourage people to give it a listen. \nArt will also always be tricky because of the influx of wealthy people who use it as a tool for tax write-offs and consolidating wealth. It's tricky, but I'm just curious to know more. Who donated the money for this statue, why did they donate, did they know this was were the money was going towards, and so on. I'd rather know how these decisions came about rather than just be mad at the consequences; without that insight the same mistakes will keep getting made.", ">\n\nI don't think it's necessarily a slippery slope, I'm just asking us to apply the principle consistently. Any dollar spent on luxury or decoration could instead be spent providing necessities to people who lack them, and if it's immoral to spend $10 million on some humungous arm statue, isn't it also immoral to spend $10,000 on a more modest piece of public art?\nThis is an old response to (or component of) utilitarianism: something like, can we really justify buying new clothes or going on vacations or even spending an extra few bucks on an expensive coffee drink when that money could be feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, providing life-saving medical care, etc.\nAnd I'm not totally sure how to square this. Intuitively, it seems kind of wrong to say we ought to eschew all luxury -- that just about anything we do beyond the satisfaction of our needs is wrong as long as there are people whose needs aren't met. A lot of the texture of life comes from little excesses here and there, and any normative ethical theory that demands us to give up all but the barest comforts just feels wrong (or at the very least, it seems too demanding to really be of much practical use). But at the same time, if we believe an act is good inasmuch as it maximizes happiness or reduces suffering, it does seem to follow that just about any leisure or luxury we engage in is immoral (unless you genuinely think there's more utility in, say, chugging a latte than in providing a malaria shot to some kid in rural Nigeria -- or more utility in sitting at home watching Netflix instead of, say, manning a soup kitchen). \nI guess, like you said, there's still the issue of scale. Spending $1.5 billion on the 9/11 memorial piece is more wrong than going out for a fancy dinner (or commissioning a less extravagant piece), in the same sense that stealing your friend's car is worse than stealing a french fry off his plate.", ">\n\nAt the same time, art is an easy distraction when it comes time to criticize wasteful spending. \nPlenty more is wasted on projects that achieve far less (which is saying something) due to corruption, inefficiency, lack of oversight, etc. \nHow much is lost as a result of a financial system fluctuating for seemingly no reason on any given day? How much has been spent to support these institutions? How much of the problems we're concerned with were created as a direct result of these institutions and the lack of adequate regulation?\nI'm not saying your points aren't valid, nor that someone who's struggling in these communities shouldn't feel pissed off when they see this statue, but just that possibly as a result of art being what it is, it's easy to make it a symbol in a way that draws more attention than arguably far more relevant issues.", ">\n\nI want to be clear, I'm not coming out against public art (and frankly, I actually appreciate this humungous arm sculpture). I guess more than anything, I'm just playing devil's advocate or talking through some challenges I have with my own normative ethical framework. As much as I value beautiful things, it seems wrong to install a big, expensive, fuck-off statue when people might be living in tents on the same street. But at the same time, it feels wrong to say indulging in aesthetics is immoral as long as there's a single person who's not getting enough to eat. \nI agree though, I think there's a lot more waste in commerce than in art, and we don't really account for that waste because it's less visible and it's taking place in a sphere that's meant to be productive.", ">\n\nY’all really made a monument to MLK where his head is missing?", ">\n\nand based on a picture of him hugging his wife who he routinely cheated on. Everything this statue highlights and ignores is weird.", ">\n\nAnd, to add that last little bit of insult to injury, it doesn't even get the pose right from the picture.", ">\n\nIt makes more sense now that I see the photo that inspired it, but it's still odd looking and too large. It dominates the space.", ">\n\nYou really like those fighters, don't you?", ">\n\nI mean if you’re talking about dominating space you really can’t avoid discussing the tactical advantages that the F-104 Starfighter brings to the table", ">\n\nAt quick glance it looks like hands covering an asshole (excuse my language)", ">\n\nIt's Reddit, you're excused.", ">\n\n\"MLK monument has Boston up in arms\"\ni mean, c'mon - it was right there", ">\n\nDid they have like a mock prototype before building this thing? No one sat there and said, “maybe this doesn’t look all that great.”", ">\n\nMore than likely they did, and I guarantee all the mock-ups showed one specific angle where the art works. No one in charged thought to ask how it would look at different angles or just assumed it would make sense once you take in the whole thing. It’s also way easier to make a pitch and sway concerns to a small limited audience over the larger general public. \nAlso, I’d be money the mock-ups looked slightly different than the end result. Things change when reality strikes. Material cost change so things get scaled back, maybe there were other elements like lights or accent pieces to direct viewer’s eyes but got cut due to budget reasons. \nMore than likely though, the people in charge had no idea what “good” art is and just wanted something. There was no oversight, no real check ins, and anytime the artist said something it probably went in one ear and out the other. “Sounds good, just get it done”.", ">\n\nThe backstory to this and the artist, was on CBS Sunday Morning back in December. It should be on You Tube if anyone is interested. The aluminum cast that the assistants were polishing before it was dipped in bronze, looked a lot better; eventhough it reminded you of the \"Bean\" in Grant Park in Chicago. The final version doesn't even have the reflective finish the entry picture said it would.\nThe main problem for me, is that it's based off a picture of Dr. King that vast majority of people haven't seen, so wouldn't immediate associate with him. I think the artist was thinking more about his personal feelings, than how the general publoc could relate.\nThat being said, the last two finalists on that list were BEAUTIFUL and interactive. I just can't understand what the selection committee was thinking.", ">\n\nGive me $10mil and I’ll do better" ]

[ "Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”\n“If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.\n\nThe first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful.", ">\n\nThe first view I saw of it looked like two arms holding up the biggest butt log in history.", ">\n\nRandy Marsh was here", ">\n\nI wonder how many Bonos that statue weighs 🤔", ">\n\nCourics! (I know what I'm talking about, im from zurich)", ">\n\nDoes Bono want the bitty?", ">\n\nEasy, Bono, that hurts the bitty!\nBono: BIT-TY!!", ">\n\nI’ll be honest it isn’t my taste, the MLK granite head in DC is much better.", ">\n\nThe head that is almost his whole body?", ">\n\n\"excuse me, sir. you're sitting on my body, which is also my face\"", ">\n\nIs butt legs?", ">\n\nButt is definitely legs.", ">\n\nIt's like a five-dimensional creature eating itself.\n\nEmbrace Boston, a nonprofit organization that works toward racial and economic justice and is a part of the Boston Foundation, helped provide resources and $10.5 million in funds, including a maintenance fund, for “The Embrace” and the Freedom Plaza.", ">\n\nDear god, think how far 10 mil could go toward education or helping homeless people or providing services to the addicted. This makes me pretty sick. It's both ugly and incomprehensible. Even a stick figure lets you know what it is.", ">\n\nThis. I understand the need to memorialize but it seems insensitive to sink millions into remembering the dead when that money could be used to help the living. If they are important then we should make sure to teach their history to younger generations, not build a statue many will never see. Malcolm Gadwell did a great episode these kind of situations and the dark reality of how those funds could be better implemented", ">\n\nI don’t necessarily disagree, but couldn’t we make this same argument for every dollar spent on arts or decoration or even personal luxuries?", ">\n\nIt's the classic slippery slope situation. Again, I do not do this argument as much justice as Malcolm Gladwell does in his podcast episode but it's less about expenses and more about extreme expenses like what this statue cost. His example is of the 9/11 memorial and the cost and extreme disruption it caused NYC and the hard question of its true worth; it's an extremely interesting conversation and I encourage people to give it a listen. \nArt will also always be tricky because of the influx of wealthy people who use it as a tool for tax write-offs and consolidating wealth. It's tricky, but I'm just curious to know more. Who donated the money for this statue, why did they donate, did they know this was were the money was going towards, and so on. I'd rather know how these decisions came about rather than just be mad at the consequences; without that insight the same mistakes will keep getting made.", ">\n\nI don't think it's necessarily a slippery slope, I'm just asking us to apply the principle consistently. Any dollar spent on luxury or decoration could instead be spent providing necessities to people who lack them, and if it's immoral to spend $10 million on some humungous arm statue, isn't it also immoral to spend $10,000 on a more modest piece of public art?\nThis is an old response to (or component of) utilitarianism: something like, can we really justify buying new clothes or going on vacations or even spending an extra few bucks on an expensive coffee drink when that money could be feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, providing life-saving medical care, etc.\nAnd I'm not totally sure how to square this. Intuitively, it seems kind of wrong to say we ought to eschew all luxury -- that just about anything we do beyond the satisfaction of our needs is wrong as long as there are people whose needs aren't met. A lot of the texture of life comes from little excesses here and there, and any normative ethical theory that demands us to give up all but the barest comforts just feels wrong (or at the very least, it seems too demanding to really be of much practical use). But at the same time, if we believe an act is good inasmuch as it maximizes happiness or reduces suffering, it does seem to follow that just about any leisure or luxury we engage in is immoral (unless you genuinely think there's more utility in, say, chugging a latte than in providing a malaria shot to some kid in rural Nigeria -- or more utility in sitting at home watching Netflix instead of, say, manning a soup kitchen). \nI guess, like you said, there's still the issue of scale. Spending $1.5 billion on the 9/11 memorial piece is more wrong than going out for a fancy dinner (or commissioning a less extravagant piece), in the same sense that stealing your friend's car is worse than stealing a french fry off his plate.", ">\n\nAt the same time, art is an easy distraction when it comes time to criticize wasteful spending. \nPlenty more is wasted on projects that achieve far less (which is saying something) due to corruption, inefficiency, lack of oversight, etc. \nHow much is lost as a result of a financial system fluctuating for seemingly no reason on any given day? How much has been spent to support these institutions? How much of the problems we're concerned with were created as a direct result of these institutions and the lack of adequate regulation?\nI'm not saying your points aren't valid, nor that someone who's struggling in these communities shouldn't feel pissed off when they see this statue, but just that possibly as a result of art being what it is, it's easy to make it a symbol in a way that draws more attention than arguably far more relevant issues.", ">\n\nI want to be clear, I'm not coming out against public art (and frankly, I actually appreciate this humungous arm sculpture). I guess more than anything, I'm just playing devil's advocate or talking through some challenges I have with my own normative ethical framework. As much as I value beautiful things, it seems wrong to install a big, expensive, fuck-off statue when people might be living in tents on the same street. But at the same time, it feels wrong to say indulging in aesthetics is immoral as long as there's a single person who's not getting enough to eat. \nI agree though, I think there's a lot more waste in commerce than in art, and we don't really account for that waste because it's less visible and it's taking place in a sphere that's meant to be productive.", ">\n\nY’all really made a monument to MLK where his head is missing?", ">\n\nand based on a picture of him hugging his wife who he routinely cheated on. Everything this statue highlights and ignores is weird.", ">\n\nAnd, to add that last little bit of insult to injury, it doesn't even get the pose right from the picture.", ">\n\nIt makes more sense now that I see the photo that inspired it, but it's still odd looking and too large. It dominates the space.", ">\n\nYou really like those fighters, don't you?", ">\n\nI mean if you’re talking about dominating space you really can’t avoid discussing the tactical advantages that the F-104 Starfighter brings to the table", ">\n\nAt quick glance it looks like hands covering an asshole (excuse my language)", ">\n\nIt's Reddit, you're excused.", ">\n\n\"MLK monument has Boston up in arms\"\ni mean, c'mon - it was right there", ">\n\nDid they have like a mock prototype before building this thing? No one sat there and said, “maybe this doesn’t look all that great.”", ">\n\nMore than likely they did, and I guarantee all the mock-ups showed one specific angle where the art works. No one in charged thought to ask how it would look at different angles or just assumed it would make sense once you take in the whole thing. It’s also way easier to make a pitch and sway concerns to a small limited audience over the larger general public. \nAlso, I’d be money the mock-ups looked slightly different than the end result. Things change when reality strikes. Material cost change so things get scaled back, maybe there were other elements like lights or accent pieces to direct viewer’s eyes but got cut due to budget reasons. \nMore than likely though, the people in charge had no idea what “good” art is and just wanted something. There was no oversight, no real check ins, and anytime the artist said something it probably went in one ear and out the other. “Sounds good, just get it done”.", ">\n\nThe backstory to this and the artist, was on CBS Sunday Morning back in December. It should be on You Tube if anyone is interested. The aluminum cast that the assistants were polishing before it was dipped in bronze, looked a lot better; eventhough it reminded you of the \"Bean\" in Grant Park in Chicago. The final version doesn't even have the reflective finish the entry picture said it would.\nThe main problem for me, is that it's based off a picture of Dr. King that vast majority of people haven't seen, so wouldn't immediate associate with him. I think the artist was thinking more about his personal feelings, than how the general publoc could relate.\nThat being said, the last two finalists on that list were BEAUTIFUL and interactive. I just can't understand what the selection committee was thinking.", ">\n\nGive me $10mil and I’ll do better", ">\n\nI'll do the job for half that" ]

[ "Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”\n“If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.\n\nThe first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful.", ">\n\nThe first view I saw of it looked like two arms holding up the biggest butt log in history.", ">\n\nRandy Marsh was here", ">\n\nI wonder how many Bonos that statue weighs 🤔", ">\n\nCourics! (I know what I'm talking about, im from zurich)", ">\n\nDoes Bono want the bitty?", ">\n\nEasy, Bono, that hurts the bitty!\nBono: BIT-TY!!", ">\n\nI’ll be honest it isn’t my taste, the MLK granite head in DC is much better.", ">\n\nThe head that is almost his whole body?", ">\n\n\"excuse me, sir. you're sitting on my body, which is also my face\"", ">\n\nIs butt legs?", ">\n\nButt is definitely legs.", ">\n\nIt's like a five-dimensional creature eating itself.\n\nEmbrace Boston, a nonprofit organization that works toward racial and economic justice and is a part of the Boston Foundation, helped provide resources and $10.5 million in funds, including a maintenance fund, for “The Embrace” and the Freedom Plaza.", ">\n\nDear god, think how far 10 mil could go toward education or helping homeless people or providing services to the addicted. This makes me pretty sick. It's both ugly and incomprehensible. Even a stick figure lets you know what it is.", ">\n\nThis. I understand the need to memorialize but it seems insensitive to sink millions into remembering the dead when that money could be used to help the living. If they are important then we should make sure to teach their history to younger generations, not build a statue many will never see. Malcolm Gadwell did a great episode these kind of situations and the dark reality of how those funds could be better implemented", ">\n\nI don’t necessarily disagree, but couldn’t we make this same argument for every dollar spent on arts or decoration or even personal luxuries?", ">\n\nIt's the classic slippery slope situation. Again, I do not do this argument as much justice as Malcolm Gladwell does in his podcast episode but it's less about expenses and more about extreme expenses like what this statue cost. His example is of the 9/11 memorial and the cost and extreme disruption it caused NYC and the hard question of its true worth; it's an extremely interesting conversation and I encourage people to give it a listen. \nArt will also always be tricky because of the influx of wealthy people who use it as a tool for tax write-offs and consolidating wealth. It's tricky, but I'm just curious to know more. Who donated the money for this statue, why did they donate, did they know this was were the money was going towards, and so on. I'd rather know how these decisions came about rather than just be mad at the consequences; without that insight the same mistakes will keep getting made.", ">\n\nI don't think it's necessarily a slippery slope, I'm just asking us to apply the principle consistently. Any dollar spent on luxury or decoration could instead be spent providing necessities to people who lack them, and if it's immoral to spend $10 million on some humungous arm statue, isn't it also immoral to spend $10,000 on a more modest piece of public art?\nThis is an old response to (or component of) utilitarianism: something like, can we really justify buying new clothes or going on vacations or even spending an extra few bucks on an expensive coffee drink when that money could be feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, providing life-saving medical care, etc.\nAnd I'm not totally sure how to square this. Intuitively, it seems kind of wrong to say we ought to eschew all luxury -- that just about anything we do beyond the satisfaction of our needs is wrong as long as there are people whose needs aren't met. A lot of the texture of life comes from little excesses here and there, and any normative ethical theory that demands us to give up all but the barest comforts just feels wrong (or at the very least, it seems too demanding to really be of much practical use). But at the same time, if we believe an act is good inasmuch as it maximizes happiness or reduces suffering, it does seem to follow that just about any leisure or luxury we engage in is immoral (unless you genuinely think there's more utility in, say, chugging a latte than in providing a malaria shot to some kid in rural Nigeria -- or more utility in sitting at home watching Netflix instead of, say, manning a soup kitchen). \nI guess, like you said, there's still the issue of scale. Spending $1.5 billion on the 9/11 memorial piece is more wrong than going out for a fancy dinner (or commissioning a less extravagant piece), in the same sense that stealing your friend's car is worse than stealing a french fry off his plate.", ">\n\nAt the same time, art is an easy distraction when it comes time to criticize wasteful spending. \nPlenty more is wasted on projects that achieve far less (which is saying something) due to corruption, inefficiency, lack of oversight, etc. \nHow much is lost as a result of a financial system fluctuating for seemingly no reason on any given day? How much has been spent to support these institutions? How much of the problems we're concerned with were created as a direct result of these institutions and the lack of adequate regulation?\nI'm not saying your points aren't valid, nor that someone who's struggling in these communities shouldn't feel pissed off when they see this statue, but just that possibly as a result of art being what it is, it's easy to make it a symbol in a way that draws more attention than arguably far more relevant issues.", ">\n\nI want to be clear, I'm not coming out against public art (and frankly, I actually appreciate this humungous arm sculpture). I guess more than anything, I'm just playing devil's advocate or talking through some challenges I have with my own normative ethical framework. As much as I value beautiful things, it seems wrong to install a big, expensive, fuck-off statue when people might be living in tents on the same street. But at the same time, it feels wrong to say indulging in aesthetics is immoral as long as there's a single person who's not getting enough to eat. \nI agree though, I think there's a lot more waste in commerce than in art, and we don't really account for that waste because it's less visible and it's taking place in a sphere that's meant to be productive.", ">\n\nY’all really made a monument to MLK where his head is missing?", ">\n\nand based on a picture of him hugging his wife who he routinely cheated on. Everything this statue highlights and ignores is weird.", ">\n\nAnd, to add that last little bit of insult to injury, it doesn't even get the pose right from the picture.", ">\n\nIt makes more sense now that I see the photo that inspired it, but it's still odd looking and too large. It dominates the space.", ">\n\nYou really like those fighters, don't you?", ">\n\nI mean if you’re talking about dominating space you really can’t avoid discussing the tactical advantages that the F-104 Starfighter brings to the table", ">\n\nAt quick glance it looks like hands covering an asshole (excuse my language)", ">\n\nIt's Reddit, you're excused.", ">\n\n\"MLK monument has Boston up in arms\"\ni mean, c'mon - it was right there", ">\n\nDid they have like a mock prototype before building this thing? No one sat there and said, “maybe this doesn’t look all that great.”", ">\n\nMore than likely they did, and I guarantee all the mock-ups showed one specific angle where the art works. No one in charged thought to ask how it would look at different angles or just assumed it would make sense once you take in the whole thing. It’s also way easier to make a pitch and sway concerns to a small limited audience over the larger general public. \nAlso, I’d be money the mock-ups looked slightly different than the end result. Things change when reality strikes. Material cost change so things get scaled back, maybe there were other elements like lights or accent pieces to direct viewer’s eyes but got cut due to budget reasons. \nMore than likely though, the people in charge had no idea what “good” art is and just wanted something. There was no oversight, no real check ins, and anytime the artist said something it probably went in one ear and out the other. “Sounds good, just get it done”.", ">\n\nThe backstory to this and the artist, was on CBS Sunday Morning back in December. It should be on You Tube if anyone is interested. The aluminum cast that the assistants were polishing before it was dipped in bronze, looked a lot better; eventhough it reminded you of the \"Bean\" in Grant Park in Chicago. The final version doesn't even have the reflective finish the entry picture said it would.\nThe main problem for me, is that it's based off a picture of Dr. King that vast majority of people haven't seen, so wouldn't immediate associate with him. I think the artist was thinking more about his personal feelings, than how the general publoc could relate.\nThat being said, the last two finalists on that list were BEAUTIFUL and interactive. I just can't understand what the selection committee was thinking.", ">\n\nGive me $10mil and I’ll do better", ">\n\nI'll do the job for half that", ">\n\nI'll do it for a third of 10mil. But, I'll need half that up front for materials, other half on completion. I'll get started just as soon as that first check clears. Trust me!" ]

[ "Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”\n“If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.\n\nThe first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful.", ">\n\nThe first view I saw of it looked like two arms holding up the biggest butt log in history.", ">\n\nRandy Marsh was here", ">\n\nI wonder how many Bonos that statue weighs 🤔", ">\n\nCourics! (I know what I'm talking about, im from zurich)", ">\n\nDoes Bono want the bitty?", ">\n\nEasy, Bono, that hurts the bitty!\nBono: BIT-TY!!", ">\n\nI’ll be honest it isn’t my taste, the MLK granite head in DC is much better.", ">\n\nThe head that is almost his whole body?", ">\n\n\"excuse me, sir. you're sitting on my body, which is also my face\"", ">\n\nIs butt legs?", ">\n\nButt is definitely legs.", ">\n\nIt's like a five-dimensional creature eating itself.\n\nEmbrace Boston, a nonprofit organization that works toward racial and economic justice and is a part of the Boston Foundation, helped provide resources and $10.5 million in funds, including a maintenance fund, for “The Embrace” and the Freedom Plaza.", ">\n\nDear god, think how far 10 mil could go toward education or helping homeless people or providing services to the addicted. This makes me pretty sick. It's both ugly and incomprehensible. Even a stick figure lets you know what it is.", ">\n\nThis. I understand the need to memorialize but it seems insensitive to sink millions into remembering the dead when that money could be used to help the living. If they are important then we should make sure to teach their history to younger generations, not build a statue many will never see. Malcolm Gadwell did a great episode these kind of situations and the dark reality of how those funds could be better implemented", ">\n\nI don’t necessarily disagree, but couldn’t we make this same argument for every dollar spent on arts or decoration or even personal luxuries?", ">\n\nIt's the classic slippery slope situation. Again, I do not do this argument as much justice as Malcolm Gladwell does in his podcast episode but it's less about expenses and more about extreme expenses like what this statue cost. His example is of the 9/11 memorial and the cost and extreme disruption it caused NYC and the hard question of its true worth; it's an extremely interesting conversation and I encourage people to give it a listen. \nArt will also always be tricky because of the influx of wealthy people who use it as a tool for tax write-offs and consolidating wealth. It's tricky, but I'm just curious to know more. Who donated the money for this statue, why did they donate, did they know this was were the money was going towards, and so on. I'd rather know how these decisions came about rather than just be mad at the consequences; without that insight the same mistakes will keep getting made.", ">\n\nI don't think it's necessarily a slippery slope, I'm just asking us to apply the principle consistently. Any dollar spent on luxury or decoration could instead be spent providing necessities to people who lack them, and if it's immoral to spend $10 million on some humungous arm statue, isn't it also immoral to spend $10,000 on a more modest piece of public art?\nThis is an old response to (or component of) utilitarianism: something like, can we really justify buying new clothes or going on vacations or even spending an extra few bucks on an expensive coffee drink when that money could be feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, providing life-saving medical care, etc.\nAnd I'm not totally sure how to square this. Intuitively, it seems kind of wrong to say we ought to eschew all luxury -- that just about anything we do beyond the satisfaction of our needs is wrong as long as there are people whose needs aren't met. A lot of the texture of life comes from little excesses here and there, and any normative ethical theory that demands us to give up all but the barest comforts just feels wrong (or at the very least, it seems too demanding to really be of much practical use). But at the same time, if we believe an act is good inasmuch as it maximizes happiness or reduces suffering, it does seem to follow that just about any leisure or luxury we engage in is immoral (unless you genuinely think there's more utility in, say, chugging a latte than in providing a malaria shot to some kid in rural Nigeria -- or more utility in sitting at home watching Netflix instead of, say, manning a soup kitchen). \nI guess, like you said, there's still the issue of scale. Spending $1.5 billion on the 9/11 memorial piece is more wrong than going out for a fancy dinner (or commissioning a less extravagant piece), in the same sense that stealing your friend's car is worse than stealing a french fry off his plate.", ">\n\nAt the same time, art is an easy distraction when it comes time to criticize wasteful spending. \nPlenty more is wasted on projects that achieve far less (which is saying something) due to corruption, inefficiency, lack of oversight, etc. \nHow much is lost as a result of a financial system fluctuating for seemingly no reason on any given day? How much has been spent to support these institutions? How much of the problems we're concerned with were created as a direct result of these institutions and the lack of adequate regulation?\nI'm not saying your points aren't valid, nor that someone who's struggling in these communities shouldn't feel pissed off when they see this statue, but just that possibly as a result of art being what it is, it's easy to make it a symbol in a way that draws more attention than arguably far more relevant issues.", ">\n\nI want to be clear, I'm not coming out against public art (and frankly, I actually appreciate this humungous arm sculpture). I guess more than anything, I'm just playing devil's advocate or talking through some challenges I have with my own normative ethical framework. As much as I value beautiful things, it seems wrong to install a big, expensive, fuck-off statue when people might be living in tents on the same street. But at the same time, it feels wrong to say indulging in aesthetics is immoral as long as there's a single person who's not getting enough to eat. \nI agree though, I think there's a lot more waste in commerce than in art, and we don't really account for that waste because it's less visible and it's taking place in a sphere that's meant to be productive.", ">\n\nY’all really made a monument to MLK where his head is missing?", ">\n\nand based on a picture of him hugging his wife who he routinely cheated on. Everything this statue highlights and ignores is weird.", ">\n\nAnd, to add that last little bit of insult to injury, it doesn't even get the pose right from the picture.", ">\n\nIt makes more sense now that I see the photo that inspired it, but it's still odd looking and too large. It dominates the space.", ">\n\nYou really like those fighters, don't you?", ">\n\nI mean if you’re talking about dominating space you really can’t avoid discussing the tactical advantages that the F-104 Starfighter brings to the table", ">\n\nAt quick glance it looks like hands covering an asshole (excuse my language)", ">\n\nIt's Reddit, you're excused.", ">\n\n\"MLK monument has Boston up in arms\"\ni mean, c'mon - it was right there", ">\n\nDid they have like a mock prototype before building this thing? No one sat there and said, “maybe this doesn’t look all that great.”", ">\n\nMore than likely they did, and I guarantee all the mock-ups showed one specific angle where the art works. No one in charged thought to ask how it would look at different angles or just assumed it would make sense once you take in the whole thing. It’s also way easier to make a pitch and sway concerns to a small limited audience over the larger general public. \nAlso, I’d be money the mock-ups looked slightly different than the end result. Things change when reality strikes. Material cost change so things get scaled back, maybe there were other elements like lights or accent pieces to direct viewer’s eyes but got cut due to budget reasons. \nMore than likely though, the people in charge had no idea what “good” art is and just wanted something. There was no oversight, no real check ins, and anytime the artist said something it probably went in one ear and out the other. “Sounds good, just get it done”.", ">\n\nThe backstory to this and the artist, was on CBS Sunday Morning back in December. It should be on You Tube if anyone is interested. The aluminum cast that the assistants were polishing before it was dipped in bronze, looked a lot better; eventhough it reminded you of the \"Bean\" in Grant Park in Chicago. The final version doesn't even have the reflective finish the entry picture said it would.\nThe main problem for me, is that it's based off a picture of Dr. King that vast majority of people haven't seen, so wouldn't immediate associate with him. I think the artist was thinking more about his personal feelings, than how the general publoc could relate.\nThat being said, the last two finalists on that list were BEAUTIFUL and interactive. I just can't understand what the selection committee was thinking.", ">\n\nGive me $10mil and I’ll do better", ">\n\nI'll do the job for half that", ">\n\nI'll do it for a third of 10mil. But, I'll need half that up front for materials, other half on completion. I'll get started just as soon as that first check clears. Trust me!", ">\n\nJust buy 3 small squadron of F-104 Starfighters\nEveryone will be happier\nEasier to fight racism with a fighter jet" ]

[ "Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”\n“If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.\n\nThe first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful.", ">\n\nThe first view I saw of it looked like two arms holding up the biggest butt log in history.", ">\n\nRandy Marsh was here", ">\n\nI wonder how many Bonos that statue weighs 🤔", ">\n\nCourics! (I know what I'm talking about, im from zurich)", ">\n\nDoes Bono want the bitty?", ">\n\nEasy, Bono, that hurts the bitty!\nBono: BIT-TY!!", ">\n\nI’ll be honest it isn’t my taste, the MLK granite head in DC is much better.", ">\n\nThe head that is almost his whole body?", ">\n\n\"excuse me, sir. you're sitting on my body, which is also my face\"", ">\n\nIs butt legs?", ">\n\nButt is definitely legs.", ">\n\nIt's like a five-dimensional creature eating itself.\n\nEmbrace Boston, a nonprofit organization that works toward racial and economic justice and is a part of the Boston Foundation, helped provide resources and $10.5 million in funds, including a maintenance fund, for “The Embrace” and the Freedom Plaza.", ">\n\nDear god, think how far 10 mil could go toward education or helping homeless people or providing services to the addicted. This makes me pretty sick. It's both ugly and incomprehensible. Even a stick figure lets you know what it is.", ">\n\nThis. I understand the need to memorialize but it seems insensitive to sink millions into remembering the dead when that money could be used to help the living. If they are important then we should make sure to teach their history to younger generations, not build a statue many will never see. Malcolm Gadwell did a great episode these kind of situations and the dark reality of how those funds could be better implemented", ">\n\nI don’t necessarily disagree, but couldn’t we make this same argument for every dollar spent on arts or decoration or even personal luxuries?", ">\n\nIt's the classic slippery slope situation. Again, I do not do this argument as much justice as Malcolm Gladwell does in his podcast episode but it's less about expenses and more about extreme expenses like what this statue cost. His example is of the 9/11 memorial and the cost and extreme disruption it caused NYC and the hard question of its true worth; it's an extremely interesting conversation and I encourage people to give it a listen. \nArt will also always be tricky because of the influx of wealthy people who use it as a tool for tax write-offs and consolidating wealth. It's tricky, but I'm just curious to know more. Who donated the money for this statue, why did they donate, did they know this was were the money was going towards, and so on. I'd rather know how these decisions came about rather than just be mad at the consequences; without that insight the same mistakes will keep getting made.", ">\n\nI don't think it's necessarily a slippery slope, I'm just asking us to apply the principle consistently. Any dollar spent on luxury or decoration could instead be spent providing necessities to people who lack them, and if it's immoral to spend $10 million on some humungous arm statue, isn't it also immoral to spend $10,000 on a more modest piece of public art?\nThis is an old response to (or component of) utilitarianism: something like, can we really justify buying new clothes or going on vacations or even spending an extra few bucks on an expensive coffee drink when that money could be feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, providing life-saving medical care, etc.\nAnd I'm not totally sure how to square this. Intuitively, it seems kind of wrong to say we ought to eschew all luxury -- that just about anything we do beyond the satisfaction of our needs is wrong as long as there are people whose needs aren't met. A lot of the texture of life comes from little excesses here and there, and any normative ethical theory that demands us to give up all but the barest comforts just feels wrong (or at the very least, it seems too demanding to really be of much practical use). But at the same time, if we believe an act is good inasmuch as it maximizes happiness or reduces suffering, it does seem to follow that just about any leisure or luxury we engage in is immoral (unless you genuinely think there's more utility in, say, chugging a latte than in providing a malaria shot to some kid in rural Nigeria -- or more utility in sitting at home watching Netflix instead of, say, manning a soup kitchen). \nI guess, like you said, there's still the issue of scale. Spending $1.5 billion on the 9/11 memorial piece is more wrong than going out for a fancy dinner (or commissioning a less extravagant piece), in the same sense that stealing your friend's car is worse than stealing a french fry off his plate.", ">\n\nAt the same time, art is an easy distraction when it comes time to criticize wasteful spending. \nPlenty more is wasted on projects that achieve far less (which is saying something) due to corruption, inefficiency, lack of oversight, etc. \nHow much is lost as a result of a financial system fluctuating for seemingly no reason on any given day? How much has been spent to support these institutions? How much of the problems we're concerned with were created as a direct result of these institutions and the lack of adequate regulation?\nI'm not saying your points aren't valid, nor that someone who's struggling in these communities shouldn't feel pissed off when they see this statue, but just that possibly as a result of art being what it is, it's easy to make it a symbol in a way that draws more attention than arguably far more relevant issues.", ">\n\nI want to be clear, I'm not coming out against public art (and frankly, I actually appreciate this humungous arm sculpture). I guess more than anything, I'm just playing devil's advocate or talking through some challenges I have with my own normative ethical framework. As much as I value beautiful things, it seems wrong to install a big, expensive, fuck-off statue when people might be living in tents on the same street. But at the same time, it feels wrong to say indulging in aesthetics is immoral as long as there's a single person who's not getting enough to eat. \nI agree though, I think there's a lot more waste in commerce than in art, and we don't really account for that waste because it's less visible and it's taking place in a sphere that's meant to be productive.", ">\n\nY’all really made a monument to MLK where his head is missing?", ">\n\nand based on a picture of him hugging his wife who he routinely cheated on. Everything this statue highlights and ignores is weird.", ">\n\nAnd, to add that last little bit of insult to injury, it doesn't even get the pose right from the picture.", ">\n\nIt makes more sense now that I see the photo that inspired it, but it's still odd looking and too large. It dominates the space.", ">\n\nYou really like those fighters, don't you?", ">\n\nI mean if you’re talking about dominating space you really can’t avoid discussing the tactical advantages that the F-104 Starfighter brings to the table", ">\n\nAt quick glance it looks like hands covering an asshole (excuse my language)", ">\n\nIt's Reddit, you're excused.", ">\n\n\"MLK monument has Boston up in arms\"\ni mean, c'mon - it was right there", ">\n\nDid they have like a mock prototype before building this thing? No one sat there and said, “maybe this doesn’t look all that great.”", ">\n\nMore than likely they did, and I guarantee all the mock-ups showed one specific angle where the art works. No one in charged thought to ask how it would look at different angles or just assumed it would make sense once you take in the whole thing. It’s also way easier to make a pitch and sway concerns to a small limited audience over the larger general public. \nAlso, I’d be money the mock-ups looked slightly different than the end result. Things change when reality strikes. Material cost change so things get scaled back, maybe there were other elements like lights or accent pieces to direct viewer’s eyes but got cut due to budget reasons. \nMore than likely though, the people in charge had no idea what “good” art is and just wanted something. There was no oversight, no real check ins, and anytime the artist said something it probably went in one ear and out the other. “Sounds good, just get it done”.", ">\n\nThe backstory to this and the artist, was on CBS Sunday Morning back in December. It should be on You Tube if anyone is interested. The aluminum cast that the assistants were polishing before it was dipped in bronze, looked a lot better; eventhough it reminded you of the \"Bean\" in Grant Park in Chicago. The final version doesn't even have the reflective finish the entry picture said it would.\nThe main problem for me, is that it's based off a picture of Dr. King that vast majority of people haven't seen, so wouldn't immediate associate with him. I think the artist was thinking more about his personal feelings, than how the general publoc could relate.\nThat being said, the last two finalists on that list were BEAUTIFUL and interactive. I just can't understand what the selection committee was thinking.", ">\n\nGive me $10mil and I’ll do better", ">\n\nI'll do the job for half that", ">\n\nI'll do it for a third of 10mil. But, I'll need half that up front for materials, other half on completion. I'll get started just as soon as that first check clears. Trust me!", ">\n\nJust buy 3 small squadron of F-104 Starfighters\nEveryone will be happier\nEasier to fight racism with a fighter jet", ">\n\nHuh... can't argue with that logic!" ]

[ "Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”\n“If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.\n\nThe first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful.", ">\n\nThe first view I saw of it looked like two arms holding up the biggest butt log in history.", ">\n\nRandy Marsh was here", ">\n\nI wonder how many Bonos that statue weighs 🤔", ">\n\nCourics! (I know what I'm talking about, im from zurich)", ">\n\nDoes Bono want the bitty?", ">\n\nEasy, Bono, that hurts the bitty!\nBono: BIT-TY!!", ">\n\nI’ll be honest it isn’t my taste, the MLK granite head in DC is much better.", ">\n\nThe head that is almost his whole body?", ">\n\n\"excuse me, sir. you're sitting on my body, which is also my face\"", ">\n\nIs butt legs?", ">\n\nButt is definitely legs.", ">\n\nIt's like a five-dimensional creature eating itself.\n\nEmbrace Boston, a nonprofit organization that works toward racial and economic justice and is a part of the Boston Foundation, helped provide resources and $10.5 million in funds, including a maintenance fund, for “The Embrace” and the Freedom Plaza.", ">\n\nDear god, think how far 10 mil could go toward education or helping homeless people or providing services to the addicted. This makes me pretty sick. It's both ugly and incomprehensible. Even a stick figure lets you know what it is.", ">\n\nThis. I understand the need to memorialize but it seems insensitive to sink millions into remembering the dead when that money could be used to help the living. If they are important then we should make sure to teach their history to younger generations, not build a statue many will never see. Malcolm Gadwell did a great episode these kind of situations and the dark reality of how those funds could be better implemented", ">\n\nI don’t necessarily disagree, but couldn’t we make this same argument for every dollar spent on arts or decoration or even personal luxuries?", ">\n\nIt's the classic slippery slope situation. Again, I do not do this argument as much justice as Malcolm Gladwell does in his podcast episode but it's less about expenses and more about extreme expenses like what this statue cost. His example is of the 9/11 memorial and the cost and extreme disruption it caused NYC and the hard question of its true worth; it's an extremely interesting conversation and I encourage people to give it a listen. \nArt will also always be tricky because of the influx of wealthy people who use it as a tool for tax write-offs and consolidating wealth. It's tricky, but I'm just curious to know more. Who donated the money for this statue, why did they donate, did they know this was were the money was going towards, and so on. I'd rather know how these decisions came about rather than just be mad at the consequences; without that insight the same mistakes will keep getting made.", ">\n\nI don't think it's necessarily a slippery slope, I'm just asking us to apply the principle consistently. Any dollar spent on luxury or decoration could instead be spent providing necessities to people who lack them, and if it's immoral to spend $10 million on some humungous arm statue, isn't it also immoral to spend $10,000 on a more modest piece of public art?\nThis is an old response to (or component of) utilitarianism: something like, can we really justify buying new clothes or going on vacations or even spending an extra few bucks on an expensive coffee drink when that money could be feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, providing life-saving medical care, etc.\nAnd I'm not totally sure how to square this. Intuitively, it seems kind of wrong to say we ought to eschew all luxury -- that just about anything we do beyond the satisfaction of our needs is wrong as long as there are people whose needs aren't met. A lot of the texture of life comes from little excesses here and there, and any normative ethical theory that demands us to give up all but the barest comforts just feels wrong (or at the very least, it seems too demanding to really be of much practical use). But at the same time, if we believe an act is good inasmuch as it maximizes happiness or reduces suffering, it does seem to follow that just about any leisure or luxury we engage in is immoral (unless you genuinely think there's more utility in, say, chugging a latte than in providing a malaria shot to some kid in rural Nigeria -- or more utility in sitting at home watching Netflix instead of, say, manning a soup kitchen). \nI guess, like you said, there's still the issue of scale. Spending $1.5 billion on the 9/11 memorial piece is more wrong than going out for a fancy dinner (or commissioning a less extravagant piece), in the same sense that stealing your friend's car is worse than stealing a french fry off his plate.", ">\n\nAt the same time, art is an easy distraction when it comes time to criticize wasteful spending. \nPlenty more is wasted on projects that achieve far less (which is saying something) due to corruption, inefficiency, lack of oversight, etc. \nHow much is lost as a result of a financial system fluctuating for seemingly no reason on any given day? How much has been spent to support these institutions? How much of the problems we're concerned with were created as a direct result of these institutions and the lack of adequate regulation?\nI'm not saying your points aren't valid, nor that someone who's struggling in these communities shouldn't feel pissed off when they see this statue, but just that possibly as a result of art being what it is, it's easy to make it a symbol in a way that draws more attention than arguably far more relevant issues.", ">\n\nI want to be clear, I'm not coming out against public art (and frankly, I actually appreciate this humungous arm sculpture). I guess more than anything, I'm just playing devil's advocate or talking through some challenges I have with my own normative ethical framework. As much as I value beautiful things, it seems wrong to install a big, expensive, fuck-off statue when people might be living in tents on the same street. But at the same time, it feels wrong to say indulging in aesthetics is immoral as long as there's a single person who's not getting enough to eat. \nI agree though, I think there's a lot more waste in commerce than in art, and we don't really account for that waste because it's less visible and it's taking place in a sphere that's meant to be productive.", ">\n\nY’all really made a monument to MLK where his head is missing?", ">\n\nand based on a picture of him hugging his wife who he routinely cheated on. Everything this statue highlights and ignores is weird.", ">\n\nAnd, to add that last little bit of insult to injury, it doesn't even get the pose right from the picture.", ">\n\nIt makes more sense now that I see the photo that inspired it, but it's still odd looking and too large. It dominates the space.", ">\n\nYou really like those fighters, don't you?", ">\n\nI mean if you’re talking about dominating space you really can’t avoid discussing the tactical advantages that the F-104 Starfighter brings to the table", ">\n\nAt quick glance it looks like hands covering an asshole (excuse my language)", ">\n\nIt's Reddit, you're excused.", ">\n\n\"MLK monument has Boston up in arms\"\ni mean, c'mon - it was right there", ">\n\nDid they have like a mock prototype before building this thing? No one sat there and said, “maybe this doesn’t look all that great.”", ">\n\nMore than likely they did, and I guarantee all the mock-ups showed one specific angle where the art works. No one in charged thought to ask how it would look at different angles or just assumed it would make sense once you take in the whole thing. It’s also way easier to make a pitch and sway concerns to a small limited audience over the larger general public. \nAlso, I’d be money the mock-ups looked slightly different than the end result. Things change when reality strikes. Material cost change so things get scaled back, maybe there were other elements like lights or accent pieces to direct viewer’s eyes but got cut due to budget reasons. \nMore than likely though, the people in charge had no idea what “good” art is and just wanted something. There was no oversight, no real check ins, and anytime the artist said something it probably went in one ear and out the other. “Sounds good, just get it done”.", ">\n\nThe backstory to this and the artist, was on CBS Sunday Morning back in December. It should be on You Tube if anyone is interested. The aluminum cast that the assistants were polishing before it was dipped in bronze, looked a lot better; eventhough it reminded you of the \"Bean\" in Grant Park in Chicago. The final version doesn't even have the reflective finish the entry picture said it would.\nThe main problem for me, is that it's based off a picture of Dr. King that vast majority of people haven't seen, so wouldn't immediate associate with him. I think the artist was thinking more about his personal feelings, than how the general publoc could relate.\nThat being said, the last two finalists on that list were BEAUTIFUL and interactive. I just can't understand what the selection committee was thinking.", ">\n\nGive me $10mil and I’ll do better", ">\n\nI'll do the job for half that", ">\n\nI'll do it for a third of 10mil. But, I'll need half that up front for materials, other half on completion. I'll get started just as soon as that first check clears. Trust me!", ">\n\nJust buy 3 small squadron of F-104 Starfighters\nEveryone will be happier\nEasier to fight racism with a fighter jet", ">\n\nHuh... can't argue with that logic!", ">\n\nA complete miss in it’s conception, execution and intention." ]

[ "Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”\n“If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.\n\nThe first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful.", ">\n\nThe first view I saw of it looked like two arms holding up the biggest butt log in history.", ">\n\nRandy Marsh was here", ">\n\nI wonder how many Bonos that statue weighs 🤔", ">\n\nCourics! (I know what I'm talking about, im from zurich)", ">\n\nDoes Bono want the bitty?", ">\n\nEasy, Bono, that hurts the bitty!\nBono: BIT-TY!!", ">\n\nI’ll be honest it isn’t my taste, the MLK granite head in DC is much better.", ">\n\nThe head that is almost his whole body?", ">\n\n\"excuse me, sir. you're sitting on my body, which is also my face\"", ">\n\nIs butt legs?", ">\n\nButt is definitely legs.", ">\n\nIt's like a five-dimensional creature eating itself.\n\nEmbrace Boston, a nonprofit organization that works toward racial and economic justice and is a part of the Boston Foundation, helped provide resources and $10.5 million in funds, including a maintenance fund, for “The Embrace” and the Freedom Plaza.", ">\n\nDear god, think how far 10 mil could go toward education or helping homeless people or providing services to the addicted. This makes me pretty sick. It's both ugly and incomprehensible. Even a stick figure lets you know what it is.", ">\n\nThis. I understand the need to memorialize but it seems insensitive to sink millions into remembering the dead when that money could be used to help the living. If they are important then we should make sure to teach their history to younger generations, not build a statue many will never see. Malcolm Gadwell did a great episode these kind of situations and the dark reality of how those funds could be better implemented", ">\n\nI don’t necessarily disagree, but couldn’t we make this same argument for every dollar spent on arts or decoration or even personal luxuries?", ">\n\nIt's the classic slippery slope situation. Again, I do not do this argument as much justice as Malcolm Gladwell does in his podcast episode but it's less about expenses and more about extreme expenses like what this statue cost. His example is of the 9/11 memorial and the cost and extreme disruption it caused NYC and the hard question of its true worth; it's an extremely interesting conversation and I encourage people to give it a listen. \nArt will also always be tricky because of the influx of wealthy people who use it as a tool for tax write-offs and consolidating wealth. It's tricky, but I'm just curious to know more. Who donated the money for this statue, why did they donate, did they know this was were the money was going towards, and so on. I'd rather know how these decisions came about rather than just be mad at the consequences; without that insight the same mistakes will keep getting made.", ">\n\nI don't think it's necessarily a slippery slope, I'm just asking us to apply the principle consistently. Any dollar spent on luxury or decoration could instead be spent providing necessities to people who lack them, and if it's immoral to spend $10 million on some humungous arm statue, isn't it also immoral to spend $10,000 on a more modest piece of public art?\nThis is an old response to (or component of) utilitarianism: something like, can we really justify buying new clothes or going on vacations or even spending an extra few bucks on an expensive coffee drink when that money could be feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, providing life-saving medical care, etc.\nAnd I'm not totally sure how to square this. Intuitively, it seems kind of wrong to say we ought to eschew all luxury -- that just about anything we do beyond the satisfaction of our needs is wrong as long as there are people whose needs aren't met. A lot of the texture of life comes from little excesses here and there, and any normative ethical theory that demands us to give up all but the barest comforts just feels wrong (or at the very least, it seems too demanding to really be of much practical use). But at the same time, if we believe an act is good inasmuch as it maximizes happiness or reduces suffering, it does seem to follow that just about any leisure or luxury we engage in is immoral (unless you genuinely think there's more utility in, say, chugging a latte than in providing a malaria shot to some kid in rural Nigeria -- or more utility in sitting at home watching Netflix instead of, say, manning a soup kitchen). \nI guess, like you said, there's still the issue of scale. Spending $1.5 billion on the 9/11 memorial piece is more wrong than going out for a fancy dinner (or commissioning a less extravagant piece), in the same sense that stealing your friend's car is worse than stealing a french fry off his plate.", ">\n\nAt the same time, art is an easy distraction when it comes time to criticize wasteful spending. \nPlenty more is wasted on projects that achieve far less (which is saying something) due to corruption, inefficiency, lack of oversight, etc. \nHow much is lost as a result of a financial system fluctuating for seemingly no reason on any given day? How much has been spent to support these institutions? How much of the problems we're concerned with were created as a direct result of these institutions and the lack of adequate regulation?\nI'm not saying your points aren't valid, nor that someone who's struggling in these communities shouldn't feel pissed off when they see this statue, but just that possibly as a result of art being what it is, it's easy to make it a symbol in a way that draws more attention than arguably far more relevant issues.", ">\n\nI want to be clear, I'm not coming out against public art (and frankly, I actually appreciate this humungous arm sculpture). I guess more than anything, I'm just playing devil's advocate or talking through some challenges I have with my own normative ethical framework. As much as I value beautiful things, it seems wrong to install a big, expensive, fuck-off statue when people might be living in tents on the same street. But at the same time, it feels wrong to say indulging in aesthetics is immoral as long as there's a single person who's not getting enough to eat. \nI agree though, I think there's a lot more waste in commerce than in art, and we don't really account for that waste because it's less visible and it's taking place in a sphere that's meant to be productive.", ">\n\nY’all really made a monument to MLK where his head is missing?", ">\n\nand based on a picture of him hugging his wife who he routinely cheated on. Everything this statue highlights and ignores is weird.", ">\n\nAnd, to add that last little bit of insult to injury, it doesn't even get the pose right from the picture.", ">\n\nIt makes more sense now that I see the photo that inspired it, but it's still odd looking and too large. It dominates the space.", ">\n\nYou really like those fighters, don't you?", ">\n\nI mean if you’re talking about dominating space you really can’t avoid discussing the tactical advantages that the F-104 Starfighter brings to the table", ">\n\nAt quick glance it looks like hands covering an asshole (excuse my language)", ">\n\nIt's Reddit, you're excused.", ">\n\n\"MLK monument has Boston up in arms\"\ni mean, c'mon - it was right there", ">\n\nDid they have like a mock prototype before building this thing? No one sat there and said, “maybe this doesn’t look all that great.”", ">\n\nMore than likely they did, and I guarantee all the mock-ups showed one specific angle where the art works. No one in charged thought to ask how it would look at different angles or just assumed it would make sense once you take in the whole thing. It’s also way easier to make a pitch and sway concerns to a small limited audience over the larger general public. \nAlso, I’d be money the mock-ups looked slightly different than the end result. Things change when reality strikes. Material cost change so things get scaled back, maybe there were other elements like lights or accent pieces to direct viewer’s eyes but got cut due to budget reasons. \nMore than likely though, the people in charge had no idea what “good” art is and just wanted something. There was no oversight, no real check ins, and anytime the artist said something it probably went in one ear and out the other. “Sounds good, just get it done”.", ">\n\nThe backstory to this and the artist, was on CBS Sunday Morning back in December. It should be on You Tube if anyone is interested. The aluminum cast that the assistants were polishing before it was dipped in bronze, looked a lot better; eventhough it reminded you of the \"Bean\" in Grant Park in Chicago. The final version doesn't even have the reflective finish the entry picture said it would.\nThe main problem for me, is that it's based off a picture of Dr. King that vast majority of people haven't seen, so wouldn't immediate associate with him. I think the artist was thinking more about his personal feelings, than how the general publoc could relate.\nThat being said, the last two finalists on that list were BEAUTIFUL and interactive. I just can't understand what the selection committee was thinking.", ">\n\nGive me $10mil and I’ll do better", ">\n\nI'll do the job for half that", ">\n\nI'll do it for a third of 10mil. But, I'll need half that up front for materials, other half on completion. I'll get started just as soon as that first check clears. Trust me!", ">\n\nJust buy 3 small squadron of F-104 Starfighters\nEveryone will be happier\nEasier to fight racism with a fighter jet", ">\n\nHuh... can't argue with that logic!", ">\n\nA complete miss in it’s conception, execution and intention.", ">\n\nbut a very successful reach-around, from certain angles." ]

[ "Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”\n“If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.\n\nThe first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful.", ">\n\nThe first view I saw of it looked like two arms holding up the biggest butt log in history.", ">\n\nRandy Marsh was here", ">\n\nI wonder how many Bonos that statue weighs 🤔", ">\n\nCourics! (I know what I'm talking about, im from zurich)", ">\n\nDoes Bono want the bitty?", ">\n\nEasy, Bono, that hurts the bitty!\nBono: BIT-TY!!", ">\n\nI’ll be honest it isn’t my taste, the MLK granite head in DC is much better.", ">\n\nThe head that is almost his whole body?", ">\n\n\"excuse me, sir. you're sitting on my body, which is also my face\"", ">\n\nIs butt legs?", ">\n\nButt is definitely legs.", ">\n\nIt's like a five-dimensional creature eating itself.\n\nEmbrace Boston, a nonprofit organization that works toward racial and economic justice and is a part of the Boston Foundation, helped provide resources and $10.5 million in funds, including a maintenance fund, for “The Embrace” and the Freedom Plaza.", ">\n\nDear god, think how far 10 mil could go toward education or helping homeless people or providing services to the addicted. This makes me pretty sick. It's both ugly and incomprehensible. Even a stick figure lets you know what it is.", ">\n\nThis. I understand the need to memorialize but it seems insensitive to sink millions into remembering the dead when that money could be used to help the living. If they are important then we should make sure to teach their history to younger generations, not build a statue many will never see. Malcolm Gadwell did a great episode these kind of situations and the dark reality of how those funds could be better implemented", ">\n\nI don’t necessarily disagree, but couldn’t we make this same argument for every dollar spent on arts or decoration or even personal luxuries?", ">\n\nIt's the classic slippery slope situation. Again, I do not do this argument as much justice as Malcolm Gladwell does in his podcast episode but it's less about expenses and more about extreme expenses like what this statue cost. His example is of the 9/11 memorial and the cost and extreme disruption it caused NYC and the hard question of its true worth; it's an extremely interesting conversation and I encourage people to give it a listen. \nArt will also always be tricky because of the influx of wealthy people who use it as a tool for tax write-offs and consolidating wealth. It's tricky, but I'm just curious to know more. Who donated the money for this statue, why did they donate, did they know this was were the money was going towards, and so on. I'd rather know how these decisions came about rather than just be mad at the consequences; without that insight the same mistakes will keep getting made.", ">\n\nI don't think it's necessarily a slippery slope, I'm just asking us to apply the principle consistently. Any dollar spent on luxury or decoration could instead be spent providing necessities to people who lack them, and if it's immoral to spend $10 million on some humungous arm statue, isn't it also immoral to spend $10,000 on a more modest piece of public art?\nThis is an old response to (or component of) utilitarianism: something like, can we really justify buying new clothes or going on vacations or even spending an extra few bucks on an expensive coffee drink when that money could be feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, providing life-saving medical care, etc.\nAnd I'm not totally sure how to square this. Intuitively, it seems kind of wrong to say we ought to eschew all luxury -- that just about anything we do beyond the satisfaction of our needs is wrong as long as there are people whose needs aren't met. A lot of the texture of life comes from little excesses here and there, and any normative ethical theory that demands us to give up all but the barest comforts just feels wrong (or at the very least, it seems too demanding to really be of much practical use). But at the same time, if we believe an act is good inasmuch as it maximizes happiness or reduces suffering, it does seem to follow that just about any leisure or luxury we engage in is immoral (unless you genuinely think there's more utility in, say, chugging a latte than in providing a malaria shot to some kid in rural Nigeria -- or more utility in sitting at home watching Netflix instead of, say, manning a soup kitchen). \nI guess, like you said, there's still the issue of scale. Spending $1.5 billion on the 9/11 memorial piece is more wrong than going out for a fancy dinner (or commissioning a less extravagant piece), in the same sense that stealing your friend's car is worse than stealing a french fry off his plate.", ">\n\nAt the same time, art is an easy distraction when it comes time to criticize wasteful spending. \nPlenty more is wasted on projects that achieve far less (which is saying something) due to corruption, inefficiency, lack of oversight, etc. \nHow much is lost as a result of a financial system fluctuating for seemingly no reason on any given day? How much has been spent to support these institutions? How much of the problems we're concerned with were created as a direct result of these institutions and the lack of adequate regulation?\nI'm not saying your points aren't valid, nor that someone who's struggling in these communities shouldn't feel pissed off when they see this statue, but just that possibly as a result of art being what it is, it's easy to make it a symbol in a way that draws more attention than arguably far more relevant issues.", ">\n\nI want to be clear, I'm not coming out against public art (and frankly, I actually appreciate this humungous arm sculpture). I guess more than anything, I'm just playing devil's advocate or talking through some challenges I have with my own normative ethical framework. As much as I value beautiful things, it seems wrong to install a big, expensive, fuck-off statue when people might be living in tents on the same street. But at the same time, it feels wrong to say indulging in aesthetics is immoral as long as there's a single person who's not getting enough to eat. \nI agree though, I think there's a lot more waste in commerce than in art, and we don't really account for that waste because it's less visible and it's taking place in a sphere that's meant to be productive.", ">\n\nY’all really made a monument to MLK where his head is missing?", ">\n\nand based on a picture of him hugging his wife who he routinely cheated on. Everything this statue highlights and ignores is weird.", ">\n\nAnd, to add that last little bit of insult to injury, it doesn't even get the pose right from the picture.", ">\n\nIt makes more sense now that I see the photo that inspired it, but it's still odd looking and too large. It dominates the space.", ">\n\nYou really like those fighters, don't you?", ">\n\nI mean if you’re talking about dominating space you really can’t avoid discussing the tactical advantages that the F-104 Starfighter brings to the table", ">\n\nAt quick glance it looks like hands covering an asshole (excuse my language)", ">\n\nIt's Reddit, you're excused.", ">\n\n\"MLK monument has Boston up in arms\"\ni mean, c'mon - it was right there", ">\n\nDid they have like a mock prototype before building this thing? No one sat there and said, “maybe this doesn’t look all that great.”", ">\n\nMore than likely they did, and I guarantee all the mock-ups showed one specific angle where the art works. No one in charged thought to ask how it would look at different angles or just assumed it would make sense once you take in the whole thing. It’s also way easier to make a pitch and sway concerns to a small limited audience over the larger general public. \nAlso, I’d be money the mock-ups looked slightly different than the end result. Things change when reality strikes. Material cost change so things get scaled back, maybe there were other elements like lights or accent pieces to direct viewer’s eyes but got cut due to budget reasons. \nMore than likely though, the people in charge had no idea what “good” art is and just wanted something. There was no oversight, no real check ins, and anytime the artist said something it probably went in one ear and out the other. “Sounds good, just get it done”.", ">\n\nThe backstory to this and the artist, was on CBS Sunday Morning back in December. It should be on You Tube if anyone is interested. The aluminum cast that the assistants were polishing before it was dipped in bronze, looked a lot better; eventhough it reminded you of the \"Bean\" in Grant Park in Chicago. The final version doesn't even have the reflective finish the entry picture said it would.\nThe main problem for me, is that it's based off a picture of Dr. King that vast majority of people haven't seen, so wouldn't immediate associate with him. I think the artist was thinking more about his personal feelings, than how the general publoc could relate.\nThat being said, the last two finalists on that list were BEAUTIFUL and interactive. I just can't understand what the selection committee was thinking.", ">\n\nGive me $10mil and I’ll do better", ">\n\nI'll do the job for half that", ">\n\nI'll do it for a third of 10mil. But, I'll need half that up front for materials, other half on completion. I'll get started just as soon as that first check clears. Trust me!", ">\n\nJust buy 3 small squadron of F-104 Starfighters\nEveryone will be happier\nEasier to fight racism with a fighter jet", ">\n\nHuh... can't argue with that logic!", ">\n\nA complete miss in it’s conception, execution and intention.", ">\n\nbut a very successful reach-around, from certain angles.", ">\n\nOMG a reach-around is exactly what I thought the sculpture looked like, lol" ]

[ "Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”\n“If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.\n\nThe first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful.", ">\n\nThe first view I saw of it looked like two arms holding up the biggest butt log in history.", ">\n\nRandy Marsh was here", ">\n\nI wonder how many Bonos that statue weighs 🤔", ">\n\nCourics! (I know what I'm talking about, im from zurich)", ">\n\nDoes Bono want the bitty?", ">\n\nEasy, Bono, that hurts the bitty!\nBono: BIT-TY!!", ">\n\nI’ll be honest it isn’t my taste, the MLK granite head in DC is much better.", ">\n\nThe head that is almost his whole body?", ">\n\n\"excuse me, sir. you're sitting on my body, which is also my face\"", ">\n\nIs butt legs?", ">\n\nButt is definitely legs.", ">\n\nIt's like a five-dimensional creature eating itself.\n\nEmbrace Boston, a nonprofit organization that works toward racial and economic justice and is a part of the Boston Foundation, helped provide resources and $10.5 million in funds, including a maintenance fund, for “The Embrace” and the Freedom Plaza.", ">\n\nDear god, think how far 10 mil could go toward education or helping homeless people or providing services to the addicted. This makes me pretty sick. It's both ugly and incomprehensible. Even a stick figure lets you know what it is.", ">\n\nThis. I understand the need to memorialize but it seems insensitive to sink millions into remembering the dead when that money could be used to help the living. If they are important then we should make sure to teach their history to younger generations, not build a statue many will never see. Malcolm Gadwell did a great episode these kind of situations and the dark reality of how those funds could be better implemented", ">\n\nI don’t necessarily disagree, but couldn’t we make this same argument for every dollar spent on arts or decoration or even personal luxuries?", ">\n\nIt's the classic slippery slope situation. Again, I do not do this argument as much justice as Malcolm Gladwell does in his podcast episode but it's less about expenses and more about extreme expenses like what this statue cost. His example is of the 9/11 memorial and the cost and extreme disruption it caused NYC and the hard question of its true worth; it's an extremely interesting conversation and I encourage people to give it a listen. \nArt will also always be tricky because of the influx of wealthy people who use it as a tool for tax write-offs and consolidating wealth. It's tricky, but I'm just curious to know more. Who donated the money for this statue, why did they donate, did they know this was were the money was going towards, and so on. I'd rather know how these decisions came about rather than just be mad at the consequences; without that insight the same mistakes will keep getting made.", ">\n\nI don't think it's necessarily a slippery slope, I'm just asking us to apply the principle consistently. Any dollar spent on luxury or decoration could instead be spent providing necessities to people who lack them, and if it's immoral to spend $10 million on some humungous arm statue, isn't it also immoral to spend $10,000 on a more modest piece of public art?\nThis is an old response to (or component of) utilitarianism: something like, can we really justify buying new clothes or going on vacations or even spending an extra few bucks on an expensive coffee drink when that money could be feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, providing life-saving medical care, etc.\nAnd I'm not totally sure how to square this. Intuitively, it seems kind of wrong to say we ought to eschew all luxury -- that just about anything we do beyond the satisfaction of our needs is wrong as long as there are people whose needs aren't met. A lot of the texture of life comes from little excesses here and there, and any normative ethical theory that demands us to give up all but the barest comforts just feels wrong (or at the very least, it seems too demanding to really be of much practical use). But at the same time, if we believe an act is good inasmuch as it maximizes happiness or reduces suffering, it does seem to follow that just about any leisure or luxury we engage in is immoral (unless you genuinely think there's more utility in, say, chugging a latte than in providing a malaria shot to some kid in rural Nigeria -- or more utility in sitting at home watching Netflix instead of, say, manning a soup kitchen). \nI guess, like you said, there's still the issue of scale. Spending $1.5 billion on the 9/11 memorial piece is more wrong than going out for a fancy dinner (or commissioning a less extravagant piece), in the same sense that stealing your friend's car is worse than stealing a french fry off his plate.", ">\n\nAt the same time, art is an easy distraction when it comes time to criticize wasteful spending. \nPlenty more is wasted on projects that achieve far less (which is saying something) due to corruption, inefficiency, lack of oversight, etc. \nHow much is lost as a result of a financial system fluctuating for seemingly no reason on any given day? How much has been spent to support these institutions? How much of the problems we're concerned with were created as a direct result of these institutions and the lack of adequate regulation?\nI'm not saying your points aren't valid, nor that someone who's struggling in these communities shouldn't feel pissed off when they see this statue, but just that possibly as a result of art being what it is, it's easy to make it a symbol in a way that draws more attention than arguably far more relevant issues.", ">\n\nI want to be clear, I'm not coming out against public art (and frankly, I actually appreciate this humungous arm sculpture). I guess more than anything, I'm just playing devil's advocate or talking through some challenges I have with my own normative ethical framework. As much as I value beautiful things, it seems wrong to install a big, expensive, fuck-off statue when people might be living in tents on the same street. But at the same time, it feels wrong to say indulging in aesthetics is immoral as long as there's a single person who's not getting enough to eat. \nI agree though, I think there's a lot more waste in commerce than in art, and we don't really account for that waste because it's less visible and it's taking place in a sphere that's meant to be productive.", ">\n\nY’all really made a monument to MLK where his head is missing?", ">\n\nand based on a picture of him hugging his wife who he routinely cheated on. Everything this statue highlights and ignores is weird.", ">\n\nAnd, to add that last little bit of insult to injury, it doesn't even get the pose right from the picture.", ">\n\nIt makes more sense now that I see the photo that inspired it, but it's still odd looking and too large. It dominates the space.", ">\n\nYou really like those fighters, don't you?", ">\n\nI mean if you’re talking about dominating space you really can’t avoid discussing the tactical advantages that the F-104 Starfighter brings to the table", ">\n\nAt quick glance it looks like hands covering an asshole (excuse my language)", ">\n\nIt's Reddit, you're excused.", ">\n\n\"MLK monument has Boston up in arms\"\ni mean, c'mon - it was right there", ">\n\nDid they have like a mock prototype before building this thing? No one sat there and said, “maybe this doesn’t look all that great.”", ">\n\nMore than likely they did, and I guarantee all the mock-ups showed one specific angle where the art works. No one in charged thought to ask how it would look at different angles or just assumed it would make sense once you take in the whole thing. It’s also way easier to make a pitch and sway concerns to a small limited audience over the larger general public. \nAlso, I’d be money the mock-ups looked slightly different than the end result. Things change when reality strikes. Material cost change so things get scaled back, maybe there were other elements like lights or accent pieces to direct viewer’s eyes but got cut due to budget reasons. \nMore than likely though, the people in charge had no idea what “good” art is and just wanted something. There was no oversight, no real check ins, and anytime the artist said something it probably went in one ear and out the other. “Sounds good, just get it done”.", ">\n\nThe backstory to this and the artist, was on CBS Sunday Morning back in December. It should be on You Tube if anyone is interested. The aluminum cast that the assistants were polishing before it was dipped in bronze, looked a lot better; eventhough it reminded you of the \"Bean\" in Grant Park in Chicago. The final version doesn't even have the reflective finish the entry picture said it would.\nThe main problem for me, is that it's based off a picture of Dr. King that vast majority of people haven't seen, so wouldn't immediate associate with him. I think the artist was thinking more about his personal feelings, than how the general publoc could relate.\nThat being said, the last two finalists on that list were BEAUTIFUL and interactive. I just can't understand what the selection committee was thinking.", ">\n\nGive me $10mil and I’ll do better", ">\n\nI'll do the job for half that", ">\n\nI'll do it for a third of 10mil. But, I'll need half that up front for materials, other half on completion. I'll get started just as soon as that first check clears. Trust me!", ">\n\nJust buy 3 small squadron of F-104 Starfighters\nEveryone will be happier\nEasier to fight racism with a fighter jet", ">\n\nHuh... can't argue with that logic!", ">\n\nA complete miss in it’s conception, execution and intention.", ">\n\nbut a very successful reach-around, from certain angles.", ">\n\nOMG a reach-around is exactly what I thought the sculpture looked like, lol", ">\n\nWithout reading headlines, my first reaction to this monument was 'why did somebody make a sculpture of someone stuffing their head up their own ass'\nEdit: typo" ]

[ "Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”\n“If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.\n\nThe first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful.", ">\n\nThe first view I saw of it looked like two arms holding up the biggest butt log in history.", ">\n\nRandy Marsh was here", ">\n\nI wonder how many Bonos that statue weighs 🤔", ">\n\nCourics! (I know what I'm talking about, im from zurich)", ">\n\nDoes Bono want the bitty?", ">\n\nEasy, Bono, that hurts the bitty!\nBono: BIT-TY!!", ">\n\nI’ll be honest it isn’t my taste, the MLK granite head in DC is much better.", ">\n\nThe head that is almost his whole body?", ">\n\n\"excuse me, sir. you're sitting on my body, which is also my face\"", ">\n\nIs butt legs?", ">\n\nButt is definitely legs.", ">\n\nIt's like a five-dimensional creature eating itself.\n\nEmbrace Boston, a nonprofit organization that works toward racial and economic justice and is a part of the Boston Foundation, helped provide resources and $10.5 million in funds, including a maintenance fund, for “The Embrace” and the Freedom Plaza.", ">\n\nDear god, think how far 10 mil could go toward education or helping homeless people or providing services to the addicted. This makes me pretty sick. It's both ugly and incomprehensible. Even a stick figure lets you know what it is.", ">\n\nThis. I understand the need to memorialize but it seems insensitive to sink millions into remembering the dead when that money could be used to help the living. If they are important then we should make sure to teach their history to younger generations, not build a statue many will never see. Malcolm Gadwell did a great episode these kind of situations and the dark reality of how those funds could be better implemented", ">\n\nI don’t necessarily disagree, but couldn’t we make this same argument for every dollar spent on arts or decoration or even personal luxuries?", ">\n\nIt's the classic slippery slope situation. Again, I do not do this argument as much justice as Malcolm Gladwell does in his podcast episode but it's less about expenses and more about extreme expenses like what this statue cost. His example is of the 9/11 memorial and the cost and extreme disruption it caused NYC and the hard question of its true worth; it's an extremely interesting conversation and I encourage people to give it a listen. \nArt will also always be tricky because of the influx of wealthy people who use it as a tool for tax write-offs and consolidating wealth. It's tricky, but I'm just curious to know more. Who donated the money for this statue, why did they donate, did they know this was were the money was going towards, and so on. I'd rather know how these decisions came about rather than just be mad at the consequences; without that insight the same mistakes will keep getting made.", ">\n\nI don't think it's necessarily a slippery slope, I'm just asking us to apply the principle consistently. Any dollar spent on luxury or decoration could instead be spent providing necessities to people who lack them, and if it's immoral to spend $10 million on some humungous arm statue, isn't it also immoral to spend $10,000 on a more modest piece of public art?\nThis is an old response to (or component of) utilitarianism: something like, can we really justify buying new clothes or going on vacations or even spending an extra few bucks on an expensive coffee drink when that money could be feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, providing life-saving medical care, etc.\nAnd I'm not totally sure how to square this. Intuitively, it seems kind of wrong to say we ought to eschew all luxury -- that just about anything we do beyond the satisfaction of our needs is wrong as long as there are people whose needs aren't met. A lot of the texture of life comes from little excesses here and there, and any normative ethical theory that demands us to give up all but the barest comforts just feels wrong (or at the very least, it seems too demanding to really be of much practical use). But at the same time, if we believe an act is good inasmuch as it maximizes happiness or reduces suffering, it does seem to follow that just about any leisure or luxury we engage in is immoral (unless you genuinely think there's more utility in, say, chugging a latte than in providing a malaria shot to some kid in rural Nigeria -- or more utility in sitting at home watching Netflix instead of, say, manning a soup kitchen). \nI guess, like you said, there's still the issue of scale. Spending $1.5 billion on the 9/11 memorial piece is more wrong than going out for a fancy dinner (or commissioning a less extravagant piece), in the same sense that stealing your friend's car is worse than stealing a french fry off his plate.", ">\n\nAt the same time, art is an easy distraction when it comes time to criticize wasteful spending. \nPlenty more is wasted on projects that achieve far less (which is saying something) due to corruption, inefficiency, lack of oversight, etc. \nHow much is lost as a result of a financial system fluctuating for seemingly no reason on any given day? How much has been spent to support these institutions? How much of the problems we're concerned with were created as a direct result of these institutions and the lack of adequate regulation?\nI'm not saying your points aren't valid, nor that someone who's struggling in these communities shouldn't feel pissed off when they see this statue, but just that possibly as a result of art being what it is, it's easy to make it a symbol in a way that draws more attention than arguably far more relevant issues.", ">\n\nI want to be clear, I'm not coming out against public art (and frankly, I actually appreciate this humungous arm sculpture). I guess more than anything, I'm just playing devil's advocate or talking through some challenges I have with my own normative ethical framework. As much as I value beautiful things, it seems wrong to install a big, expensive, fuck-off statue when people might be living in tents on the same street. But at the same time, it feels wrong to say indulging in aesthetics is immoral as long as there's a single person who's not getting enough to eat. \nI agree though, I think there's a lot more waste in commerce than in art, and we don't really account for that waste because it's less visible and it's taking place in a sphere that's meant to be productive.", ">\n\nY’all really made a monument to MLK where his head is missing?", ">\n\nand based on a picture of him hugging his wife who he routinely cheated on. Everything this statue highlights and ignores is weird.", ">\n\nAnd, to add that last little bit of insult to injury, it doesn't even get the pose right from the picture.", ">\n\nIt makes more sense now that I see the photo that inspired it, but it's still odd looking and too large. It dominates the space.", ">\n\nYou really like those fighters, don't you?", ">\n\nI mean if you’re talking about dominating space you really can’t avoid discussing the tactical advantages that the F-104 Starfighter brings to the table", ">\n\nAt quick glance it looks like hands covering an asshole (excuse my language)", ">\n\nIt's Reddit, you're excused.", ">\n\n\"MLK monument has Boston up in arms\"\ni mean, c'mon - it was right there", ">\n\nDid they have like a mock prototype before building this thing? No one sat there and said, “maybe this doesn’t look all that great.”", ">\n\nMore than likely they did, and I guarantee all the mock-ups showed one specific angle where the art works. No one in charged thought to ask how it would look at different angles or just assumed it would make sense once you take in the whole thing. It’s also way easier to make a pitch and sway concerns to a small limited audience over the larger general public. \nAlso, I’d be money the mock-ups looked slightly different than the end result. Things change when reality strikes. Material cost change so things get scaled back, maybe there were other elements like lights or accent pieces to direct viewer’s eyes but got cut due to budget reasons. \nMore than likely though, the people in charge had no idea what “good” art is and just wanted something. There was no oversight, no real check ins, and anytime the artist said something it probably went in one ear and out the other. “Sounds good, just get it done”.", ">\n\nThe backstory to this and the artist, was on CBS Sunday Morning back in December. It should be on You Tube if anyone is interested. The aluminum cast that the assistants were polishing before it was dipped in bronze, looked a lot better; eventhough it reminded you of the \"Bean\" in Grant Park in Chicago. The final version doesn't even have the reflective finish the entry picture said it would.\nThe main problem for me, is that it's based off a picture of Dr. King that vast majority of people haven't seen, so wouldn't immediate associate with him. I think the artist was thinking more about his personal feelings, than how the general publoc could relate.\nThat being said, the last two finalists on that list were BEAUTIFUL and interactive. I just can't understand what the selection committee was thinking.", ">\n\nGive me $10mil and I’ll do better", ">\n\nI'll do the job for half that", ">\n\nI'll do it for a third of 10mil. But, I'll need half that up front for materials, other half on completion. I'll get started just as soon as that first check clears. Trust me!", ">\n\nJust buy 3 small squadron of F-104 Starfighters\nEveryone will be happier\nEasier to fight racism with a fighter jet", ">\n\nHuh... can't argue with that logic!", ">\n\nA complete miss in it’s conception, execution and intention.", ">\n\nbut a very successful reach-around, from certain angles.", ">\n\nOMG a reach-around is exactly what I thought the sculpture looked like, lol", ">\n\nWithout reading headlines, my first reaction to this monument was 'why did somebody make a sculpture of someone stuffing their head up their own ass'\nEdit: typo", ">\n\nOmg, I am crying-laughing right now!" ]

[ "Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”\n“If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.\n\nThe first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful.", ">\n\nThe first view I saw of it looked like two arms holding up the biggest butt log in history.", ">\n\nRandy Marsh was here", ">\n\nI wonder how many Bonos that statue weighs 🤔", ">\n\nCourics! (I know what I'm talking about, im from zurich)", ">\n\nDoes Bono want the bitty?", ">\n\nEasy, Bono, that hurts the bitty!\nBono: BIT-TY!!", ">\n\nI’ll be honest it isn’t my taste, the MLK granite head in DC is much better.", ">\n\nThe head that is almost his whole body?", ">\n\n\"excuse me, sir. you're sitting on my body, which is also my face\"", ">\n\nIs butt legs?", ">\n\nButt is definitely legs.", ">\n\nIt's like a five-dimensional creature eating itself.\n\nEmbrace Boston, a nonprofit organization that works toward racial and economic justice and is a part of the Boston Foundation, helped provide resources and $10.5 million in funds, including a maintenance fund, for “The Embrace” and the Freedom Plaza.", ">\n\nDear god, think how far 10 mil could go toward education or helping homeless people or providing services to the addicted. This makes me pretty sick. It's both ugly and incomprehensible. Even a stick figure lets you know what it is.", ">\n\nThis. I understand the need to memorialize but it seems insensitive to sink millions into remembering the dead when that money could be used to help the living. If they are important then we should make sure to teach their history to younger generations, not build a statue many will never see. Malcolm Gadwell did a great episode these kind of situations and the dark reality of how those funds could be better implemented", ">\n\nI don’t necessarily disagree, but couldn’t we make this same argument for every dollar spent on arts or decoration or even personal luxuries?", ">\n\nIt's the classic slippery slope situation. Again, I do not do this argument as much justice as Malcolm Gladwell does in his podcast episode but it's less about expenses and more about extreme expenses like what this statue cost. His example is of the 9/11 memorial and the cost and extreme disruption it caused NYC and the hard question of its true worth; it's an extremely interesting conversation and I encourage people to give it a listen. \nArt will also always be tricky because of the influx of wealthy people who use it as a tool for tax write-offs and consolidating wealth. It's tricky, but I'm just curious to know more. Who donated the money for this statue, why did they donate, did they know this was were the money was going towards, and so on. I'd rather know how these decisions came about rather than just be mad at the consequences; without that insight the same mistakes will keep getting made.", ">\n\nI don't think it's necessarily a slippery slope, I'm just asking us to apply the principle consistently. Any dollar spent on luxury or decoration could instead be spent providing necessities to people who lack them, and if it's immoral to spend $10 million on some humungous arm statue, isn't it also immoral to spend $10,000 on a more modest piece of public art?\nThis is an old response to (or component of) utilitarianism: something like, can we really justify buying new clothes or going on vacations or even spending an extra few bucks on an expensive coffee drink when that money could be feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, providing life-saving medical care, etc.\nAnd I'm not totally sure how to square this. Intuitively, it seems kind of wrong to say we ought to eschew all luxury -- that just about anything we do beyond the satisfaction of our needs is wrong as long as there are people whose needs aren't met. A lot of the texture of life comes from little excesses here and there, and any normative ethical theory that demands us to give up all but the barest comforts just feels wrong (or at the very least, it seems too demanding to really be of much practical use). But at the same time, if we believe an act is good inasmuch as it maximizes happiness or reduces suffering, it does seem to follow that just about any leisure or luxury we engage in is immoral (unless you genuinely think there's more utility in, say, chugging a latte than in providing a malaria shot to some kid in rural Nigeria -- or more utility in sitting at home watching Netflix instead of, say, manning a soup kitchen). \nI guess, like you said, there's still the issue of scale. Spending $1.5 billion on the 9/11 memorial piece is more wrong than going out for a fancy dinner (or commissioning a less extravagant piece), in the same sense that stealing your friend's car is worse than stealing a french fry off his plate.", ">\n\nAt the same time, art is an easy distraction when it comes time to criticize wasteful spending. \nPlenty more is wasted on projects that achieve far less (which is saying something) due to corruption, inefficiency, lack of oversight, etc. \nHow much is lost as a result of a financial system fluctuating for seemingly no reason on any given day? How much has been spent to support these institutions? How much of the problems we're concerned with were created as a direct result of these institutions and the lack of adequate regulation?\nI'm not saying your points aren't valid, nor that someone who's struggling in these communities shouldn't feel pissed off when they see this statue, but just that possibly as a result of art being what it is, it's easy to make it a symbol in a way that draws more attention than arguably far more relevant issues.", ">\n\nI want to be clear, I'm not coming out against public art (and frankly, I actually appreciate this humungous arm sculpture). I guess more than anything, I'm just playing devil's advocate or talking through some challenges I have with my own normative ethical framework. As much as I value beautiful things, it seems wrong to install a big, expensive, fuck-off statue when people might be living in tents on the same street. But at the same time, it feels wrong to say indulging in aesthetics is immoral as long as there's a single person who's not getting enough to eat. \nI agree though, I think there's a lot more waste in commerce than in art, and we don't really account for that waste because it's less visible and it's taking place in a sphere that's meant to be productive.", ">\n\nY’all really made a monument to MLK where his head is missing?", ">\n\nand based on a picture of him hugging his wife who he routinely cheated on. Everything this statue highlights and ignores is weird.", ">\n\nAnd, to add that last little bit of insult to injury, it doesn't even get the pose right from the picture.", ">\n\nIt makes more sense now that I see the photo that inspired it, but it's still odd looking and too large. It dominates the space.", ">\n\nYou really like those fighters, don't you?", ">\n\nI mean if you’re talking about dominating space you really can’t avoid discussing the tactical advantages that the F-104 Starfighter brings to the table", ">\n\nAt quick glance it looks like hands covering an asshole (excuse my language)", ">\n\nIt's Reddit, you're excused.", ">\n\n\"MLK monument has Boston up in arms\"\ni mean, c'mon - it was right there", ">\n\nDid they have like a mock prototype before building this thing? No one sat there and said, “maybe this doesn’t look all that great.”", ">\n\nMore than likely they did, and I guarantee all the mock-ups showed one specific angle where the art works. No one in charged thought to ask how it would look at different angles or just assumed it would make sense once you take in the whole thing. It’s also way easier to make a pitch and sway concerns to a small limited audience over the larger general public. \nAlso, I’d be money the mock-ups looked slightly different than the end result. Things change when reality strikes. Material cost change so things get scaled back, maybe there were other elements like lights or accent pieces to direct viewer’s eyes but got cut due to budget reasons. \nMore than likely though, the people in charge had no idea what “good” art is and just wanted something. There was no oversight, no real check ins, and anytime the artist said something it probably went in one ear and out the other. “Sounds good, just get it done”.", ">\n\nThe backstory to this and the artist, was on CBS Sunday Morning back in December. It should be on You Tube if anyone is interested. The aluminum cast that the assistants were polishing before it was dipped in bronze, looked a lot better; eventhough it reminded you of the \"Bean\" in Grant Park in Chicago. The final version doesn't even have the reflective finish the entry picture said it would.\nThe main problem for me, is that it's based off a picture of Dr. King that vast majority of people haven't seen, so wouldn't immediate associate with him. I think the artist was thinking more about his personal feelings, than how the general publoc could relate.\nThat being said, the last two finalists on that list were BEAUTIFUL and interactive. I just can't understand what the selection committee was thinking.", ">\n\nGive me $10mil and I’ll do better", ">\n\nI'll do the job for half that", ">\n\nI'll do it for a third of 10mil. But, I'll need half that up front for materials, other half on completion. I'll get started just as soon as that first check clears. Trust me!", ">\n\nJust buy 3 small squadron of F-104 Starfighters\nEveryone will be happier\nEasier to fight racism with a fighter jet", ">\n\nHuh... can't argue with that logic!", ">\n\nA complete miss in it’s conception, execution and intention.", ">\n\nbut a very successful reach-around, from certain angles.", ">\n\nOMG a reach-around is exactly what I thought the sculpture looked like, lol", ">\n\nWithout reading headlines, my first reaction to this monument was 'why did somebody make a sculpture of someone stuffing their head up their own ass'\nEdit: typo", ">\n\nOmg, I am crying-laughing right now!", ">\n\nMy throat's hurting from laughing so hard." ]

[ "Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”\n“If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.\n\nThe first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful.", ">\n\nThe first view I saw of it looked like two arms holding up the biggest butt log in history.", ">\n\nRandy Marsh was here", ">\n\nI wonder how many Bonos that statue weighs 🤔", ">\n\nCourics! (I know what I'm talking about, im from zurich)", ">\n\nDoes Bono want the bitty?", ">\n\nEasy, Bono, that hurts the bitty!\nBono: BIT-TY!!", ">\n\nI’ll be honest it isn’t my taste, the MLK granite head in DC is much better.", ">\n\nThe head that is almost his whole body?", ">\n\n\"excuse me, sir. you're sitting on my body, which is also my face\"", ">\n\nIs butt legs?", ">\n\nButt is definitely legs.", ">\n\nIt's like a five-dimensional creature eating itself.\n\nEmbrace Boston, a nonprofit organization that works toward racial and economic justice and is a part of the Boston Foundation, helped provide resources and $10.5 million in funds, including a maintenance fund, for “The Embrace” and the Freedom Plaza.", ">\n\nDear god, think how far 10 mil could go toward education or helping homeless people or providing services to the addicted. This makes me pretty sick. It's both ugly and incomprehensible. Even a stick figure lets you know what it is.", ">\n\nThis. I understand the need to memorialize but it seems insensitive to sink millions into remembering the dead when that money could be used to help the living. If they are important then we should make sure to teach their history to younger generations, not build a statue many will never see. Malcolm Gadwell did a great episode these kind of situations and the dark reality of how those funds could be better implemented", ">\n\nI don’t necessarily disagree, but couldn’t we make this same argument for every dollar spent on arts or decoration or even personal luxuries?", ">\n\nIt's the classic slippery slope situation. Again, I do not do this argument as much justice as Malcolm Gladwell does in his podcast episode but it's less about expenses and more about extreme expenses like what this statue cost. His example is of the 9/11 memorial and the cost and extreme disruption it caused NYC and the hard question of its true worth; it's an extremely interesting conversation and I encourage people to give it a listen. \nArt will also always be tricky because of the influx of wealthy people who use it as a tool for tax write-offs and consolidating wealth. It's tricky, but I'm just curious to know more. Who donated the money for this statue, why did they donate, did they know this was were the money was going towards, and so on. I'd rather know how these decisions came about rather than just be mad at the consequences; without that insight the same mistakes will keep getting made.", ">\n\nI don't think it's necessarily a slippery slope, I'm just asking us to apply the principle consistently. Any dollar spent on luxury or decoration could instead be spent providing necessities to people who lack them, and if it's immoral to spend $10 million on some humungous arm statue, isn't it also immoral to spend $10,000 on a more modest piece of public art?\nThis is an old response to (or component of) utilitarianism: something like, can we really justify buying new clothes or going on vacations or even spending an extra few bucks on an expensive coffee drink when that money could be feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, providing life-saving medical care, etc.\nAnd I'm not totally sure how to square this. Intuitively, it seems kind of wrong to say we ought to eschew all luxury -- that just about anything we do beyond the satisfaction of our needs is wrong as long as there are people whose needs aren't met. A lot of the texture of life comes from little excesses here and there, and any normative ethical theory that demands us to give up all but the barest comforts just feels wrong (or at the very least, it seems too demanding to really be of much practical use). But at the same time, if we believe an act is good inasmuch as it maximizes happiness or reduces suffering, it does seem to follow that just about any leisure or luxury we engage in is immoral (unless you genuinely think there's more utility in, say, chugging a latte than in providing a malaria shot to some kid in rural Nigeria -- or more utility in sitting at home watching Netflix instead of, say, manning a soup kitchen). \nI guess, like you said, there's still the issue of scale. Spending $1.5 billion on the 9/11 memorial piece is more wrong than going out for a fancy dinner (or commissioning a less extravagant piece), in the same sense that stealing your friend's car is worse than stealing a french fry off his plate.", ">\n\nAt the same time, art is an easy distraction when it comes time to criticize wasteful spending. \nPlenty more is wasted on projects that achieve far less (which is saying something) due to corruption, inefficiency, lack of oversight, etc. \nHow much is lost as a result of a financial system fluctuating for seemingly no reason on any given day? How much has been spent to support these institutions? How much of the problems we're concerned with were created as a direct result of these institutions and the lack of adequate regulation?\nI'm not saying your points aren't valid, nor that someone who's struggling in these communities shouldn't feel pissed off when they see this statue, but just that possibly as a result of art being what it is, it's easy to make it a symbol in a way that draws more attention than arguably far more relevant issues.", ">\n\nI want to be clear, I'm not coming out against public art (and frankly, I actually appreciate this humungous arm sculpture). I guess more than anything, I'm just playing devil's advocate or talking through some challenges I have with my own normative ethical framework. As much as I value beautiful things, it seems wrong to install a big, expensive, fuck-off statue when people might be living in tents on the same street. But at the same time, it feels wrong to say indulging in aesthetics is immoral as long as there's a single person who's not getting enough to eat. \nI agree though, I think there's a lot more waste in commerce than in art, and we don't really account for that waste because it's less visible and it's taking place in a sphere that's meant to be productive.", ">\n\nY’all really made a monument to MLK where his head is missing?", ">\n\nand based on a picture of him hugging his wife who he routinely cheated on. Everything this statue highlights and ignores is weird.", ">\n\nAnd, to add that last little bit of insult to injury, it doesn't even get the pose right from the picture.", ">\n\nIt makes more sense now that I see the photo that inspired it, but it's still odd looking and too large. It dominates the space.", ">\n\nYou really like those fighters, don't you?", ">\n\nI mean if you’re talking about dominating space you really can’t avoid discussing the tactical advantages that the F-104 Starfighter brings to the table", ">\n\nAt quick glance it looks like hands covering an asshole (excuse my language)", ">\n\nIt's Reddit, you're excused.", ">\n\n\"MLK monument has Boston up in arms\"\ni mean, c'mon - it was right there", ">\n\nDid they have like a mock prototype before building this thing? No one sat there and said, “maybe this doesn’t look all that great.”", ">\n\nMore than likely they did, and I guarantee all the mock-ups showed one specific angle where the art works. No one in charged thought to ask how it would look at different angles or just assumed it would make sense once you take in the whole thing. It’s also way easier to make a pitch and sway concerns to a small limited audience over the larger general public. \nAlso, I’d be money the mock-ups looked slightly different than the end result. Things change when reality strikes. Material cost change so things get scaled back, maybe there were other elements like lights or accent pieces to direct viewer’s eyes but got cut due to budget reasons. \nMore than likely though, the people in charge had no idea what “good” art is and just wanted something. There was no oversight, no real check ins, and anytime the artist said something it probably went in one ear and out the other. “Sounds good, just get it done”.", ">\n\nThe backstory to this and the artist, was on CBS Sunday Morning back in December. It should be on You Tube if anyone is interested. The aluminum cast that the assistants were polishing before it was dipped in bronze, looked a lot better; eventhough it reminded you of the \"Bean\" in Grant Park in Chicago. The final version doesn't even have the reflective finish the entry picture said it would.\nThe main problem for me, is that it's based off a picture of Dr. King that vast majority of people haven't seen, so wouldn't immediate associate with him. I think the artist was thinking more about his personal feelings, than how the general publoc could relate.\nThat being said, the last two finalists on that list were BEAUTIFUL and interactive. I just can't understand what the selection committee was thinking.", ">\n\nGive me $10mil and I’ll do better", ">\n\nI'll do the job for half that", ">\n\nI'll do it for a third of 10mil. But, I'll need half that up front for materials, other half on completion. I'll get started just as soon as that first check clears. Trust me!", ">\n\nJust buy 3 small squadron of F-104 Starfighters\nEveryone will be happier\nEasier to fight racism with a fighter jet", ">\n\nHuh... can't argue with that logic!", ">\n\nA complete miss in it’s conception, execution and intention.", ">\n\nbut a very successful reach-around, from certain angles.", ">\n\nOMG a reach-around is exactly what I thought the sculpture looked like, lol", ">\n\nWithout reading headlines, my first reaction to this monument was 'why did somebody make a sculpture of someone stuffing their head up their own ass'\nEdit: typo", ">\n\nOmg, I am crying-laughing right now!", ">\n\nMy throat's hurting from laughing so hard.", ">\n\nIt's honestly pretty bad. If nobody knows what they are looking at then the statue is a bust." ]

[ "Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”\n“If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.\n\nThe first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful.", ">\n\nThe first view I saw of it looked like two arms holding up the biggest butt log in history.", ">\n\nRandy Marsh was here", ">\n\nI wonder how many Bonos that statue weighs 🤔", ">\n\nCourics! (I know what I'm talking about, im from zurich)", ">\n\nDoes Bono want the bitty?", ">\n\nEasy, Bono, that hurts the bitty!\nBono: BIT-TY!!", ">\n\nI’ll be honest it isn’t my taste, the MLK granite head in DC is much better.", ">\n\nThe head that is almost his whole body?", ">\n\n\"excuse me, sir. you're sitting on my body, which is also my face\"", ">\n\nIs butt legs?", ">\n\nButt is definitely legs.", ">\n\nIt's like a five-dimensional creature eating itself.\n\nEmbrace Boston, a nonprofit organization that works toward racial and economic justice and is a part of the Boston Foundation, helped provide resources and $10.5 million in funds, including a maintenance fund, for “The Embrace” and the Freedom Plaza.", ">\n\nDear god, think how far 10 mil could go toward education or helping homeless people or providing services to the addicted. This makes me pretty sick. It's both ugly and incomprehensible. Even a stick figure lets you know what it is.", ">\n\nThis. I understand the need to memorialize but it seems insensitive to sink millions into remembering the dead when that money could be used to help the living. If they are important then we should make sure to teach their history to younger generations, not build a statue many will never see. Malcolm Gadwell did a great episode these kind of situations and the dark reality of how those funds could be better implemented", ">\n\nI don’t necessarily disagree, but couldn’t we make this same argument for every dollar spent on arts or decoration or even personal luxuries?", ">\n\nIt's the classic slippery slope situation. Again, I do not do this argument as much justice as Malcolm Gladwell does in his podcast episode but it's less about expenses and more about extreme expenses like what this statue cost. His example is of the 9/11 memorial and the cost and extreme disruption it caused NYC and the hard question of its true worth; it's an extremely interesting conversation and I encourage people to give it a listen. \nArt will also always be tricky because of the influx of wealthy people who use it as a tool for tax write-offs and consolidating wealth. It's tricky, but I'm just curious to know more. Who donated the money for this statue, why did they donate, did they know this was were the money was going towards, and so on. I'd rather know how these decisions came about rather than just be mad at the consequences; without that insight the same mistakes will keep getting made.", ">\n\nI don't think it's necessarily a slippery slope, I'm just asking us to apply the principle consistently. Any dollar spent on luxury or decoration could instead be spent providing necessities to people who lack them, and if it's immoral to spend $10 million on some humungous arm statue, isn't it also immoral to spend $10,000 on a more modest piece of public art?\nThis is an old response to (or component of) utilitarianism: something like, can we really justify buying new clothes or going on vacations or even spending an extra few bucks on an expensive coffee drink when that money could be feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, providing life-saving medical care, etc.\nAnd I'm not totally sure how to square this. Intuitively, it seems kind of wrong to say we ought to eschew all luxury -- that just about anything we do beyond the satisfaction of our needs is wrong as long as there are people whose needs aren't met. A lot of the texture of life comes from little excesses here and there, and any normative ethical theory that demands us to give up all but the barest comforts just feels wrong (or at the very least, it seems too demanding to really be of much practical use). But at the same time, if we believe an act is good inasmuch as it maximizes happiness or reduces suffering, it does seem to follow that just about any leisure or luxury we engage in is immoral (unless you genuinely think there's more utility in, say, chugging a latte than in providing a malaria shot to some kid in rural Nigeria -- or more utility in sitting at home watching Netflix instead of, say, manning a soup kitchen). \nI guess, like you said, there's still the issue of scale. Spending $1.5 billion on the 9/11 memorial piece is more wrong than going out for a fancy dinner (or commissioning a less extravagant piece), in the same sense that stealing your friend's car is worse than stealing a french fry off his plate.", ">\n\nAt the same time, art is an easy distraction when it comes time to criticize wasteful spending. \nPlenty more is wasted on projects that achieve far less (which is saying something) due to corruption, inefficiency, lack of oversight, etc. \nHow much is lost as a result of a financial system fluctuating for seemingly no reason on any given day? How much has been spent to support these institutions? How much of the problems we're concerned with were created as a direct result of these institutions and the lack of adequate regulation?\nI'm not saying your points aren't valid, nor that someone who's struggling in these communities shouldn't feel pissed off when they see this statue, but just that possibly as a result of art being what it is, it's easy to make it a symbol in a way that draws more attention than arguably far more relevant issues.", ">\n\nI want to be clear, I'm not coming out against public art (and frankly, I actually appreciate this humungous arm sculpture). I guess more than anything, I'm just playing devil's advocate or talking through some challenges I have with my own normative ethical framework. As much as I value beautiful things, it seems wrong to install a big, expensive, fuck-off statue when people might be living in tents on the same street. But at the same time, it feels wrong to say indulging in aesthetics is immoral as long as there's a single person who's not getting enough to eat. \nI agree though, I think there's a lot more waste in commerce than in art, and we don't really account for that waste because it's less visible and it's taking place in a sphere that's meant to be productive.", ">\n\nY’all really made a monument to MLK where his head is missing?", ">\n\nand based on a picture of him hugging his wife who he routinely cheated on. Everything this statue highlights and ignores is weird.", ">\n\nAnd, to add that last little bit of insult to injury, it doesn't even get the pose right from the picture.", ">\n\nIt makes more sense now that I see the photo that inspired it, but it's still odd looking and too large. It dominates the space.", ">\n\nYou really like those fighters, don't you?", ">\n\nI mean if you’re talking about dominating space you really can’t avoid discussing the tactical advantages that the F-104 Starfighter brings to the table", ">\n\nAt quick glance it looks like hands covering an asshole (excuse my language)", ">\n\nIt's Reddit, you're excused.", ">\n\n\"MLK monument has Boston up in arms\"\ni mean, c'mon - it was right there", ">\n\nDid they have like a mock prototype before building this thing? No one sat there and said, “maybe this doesn’t look all that great.”", ">\n\nMore than likely they did, and I guarantee all the mock-ups showed one specific angle where the art works. No one in charged thought to ask how it would look at different angles or just assumed it would make sense once you take in the whole thing. It’s also way easier to make a pitch and sway concerns to a small limited audience over the larger general public. \nAlso, I’d be money the mock-ups looked slightly different than the end result. Things change when reality strikes. Material cost change so things get scaled back, maybe there were other elements like lights or accent pieces to direct viewer’s eyes but got cut due to budget reasons. \nMore than likely though, the people in charge had no idea what “good” art is and just wanted something. There was no oversight, no real check ins, and anytime the artist said something it probably went in one ear and out the other. “Sounds good, just get it done”.", ">\n\nThe backstory to this and the artist, was on CBS Sunday Morning back in December. It should be on You Tube if anyone is interested. The aluminum cast that the assistants were polishing before it was dipped in bronze, looked a lot better; eventhough it reminded you of the \"Bean\" in Grant Park in Chicago. The final version doesn't even have the reflective finish the entry picture said it would.\nThe main problem for me, is that it's based off a picture of Dr. King that vast majority of people haven't seen, so wouldn't immediate associate with him. I think the artist was thinking more about his personal feelings, than how the general publoc could relate.\nThat being said, the last two finalists on that list were BEAUTIFUL and interactive. I just can't understand what the selection committee was thinking.", ">\n\nGive me $10mil and I’ll do better", ">\n\nI'll do the job for half that", ">\n\nI'll do it for a third of 10mil. But, I'll need half that up front for materials, other half on completion. I'll get started just as soon as that first check clears. Trust me!", ">\n\nJust buy 3 small squadron of F-104 Starfighters\nEveryone will be happier\nEasier to fight racism with a fighter jet", ">\n\nHuh... can't argue with that logic!", ">\n\nA complete miss in it’s conception, execution and intention.", ">\n\nbut a very successful reach-around, from certain angles.", ">\n\nOMG a reach-around is exactly what I thought the sculpture looked like, lol", ">\n\nWithout reading headlines, my first reaction to this monument was 'why did somebody make a sculpture of someone stuffing their head up their own ass'\nEdit: typo", ">\n\nOmg, I am crying-laughing right now!", ">\n\nMy throat's hurting from laughing so hard.", ">\n\nIt's honestly pretty bad. If nobody knows what they are looking at then the statue is a bust.", ">\n\nCan't be a bust, there's no head anywhere on it." ]

[ "Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”\n“If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.\n\nThe first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful.", ">\n\nThe first view I saw of it looked like two arms holding up the biggest butt log in history.", ">\n\nRandy Marsh was here", ">\n\nI wonder how many Bonos that statue weighs 🤔", ">\n\nCourics! (I know what I'm talking about, im from zurich)", ">\n\nDoes Bono want the bitty?", ">\n\nEasy, Bono, that hurts the bitty!\nBono: BIT-TY!!", ">\n\nI’ll be honest it isn’t my taste, the MLK granite head in DC is much better.", ">\n\nThe head that is almost his whole body?", ">\n\n\"excuse me, sir. you're sitting on my body, which is also my face\"", ">\n\nIs butt legs?", ">\n\nButt is definitely legs.", ">\n\nIt's like a five-dimensional creature eating itself.\n\nEmbrace Boston, a nonprofit organization that works toward racial and economic justice and is a part of the Boston Foundation, helped provide resources and $10.5 million in funds, including a maintenance fund, for “The Embrace” and the Freedom Plaza.", ">\n\nDear god, think how far 10 mil could go toward education or helping homeless people or providing services to the addicted. This makes me pretty sick. It's both ugly and incomprehensible. Even a stick figure lets you know what it is.", ">\n\nThis. I understand the need to memorialize but it seems insensitive to sink millions into remembering the dead when that money could be used to help the living. If they are important then we should make sure to teach their history to younger generations, not build a statue many will never see. Malcolm Gadwell did a great episode these kind of situations and the dark reality of how those funds could be better implemented", ">\n\nI don’t necessarily disagree, but couldn’t we make this same argument for every dollar spent on arts or decoration or even personal luxuries?", ">\n\nIt's the classic slippery slope situation. Again, I do not do this argument as much justice as Malcolm Gladwell does in his podcast episode but it's less about expenses and more about extreme expenses like what this statue cost. His example is of the 9/11 memorial and the cost and extreme disruption it caused NYC and the hard question of its true worth; it's an extremely interesting conversation and I encourage people to give it a listen. \nArt will also always be tricky because of the influx of wealthy people who use it as a tool for tax write-offs and consolidating wealth. It's tricky, but I'm just curious to know more. Who donated the money for this statue, why did they donate, did they know this was were the money was going towards, and so on. I'd rather know how these decisions came about rather than just be mad at the consequences; without that insight the same mistakes will keep getting made.", ">\n\nI don't think it's necessarily a slippery slope, I'm just asking us to apply the principle consistently. Any dollar spent on luxury or decoration could instead be spent providing necessities to people who lack them, and if it's immoral to spend $10 million on some humungous arm statue, isn't it also immoral to spend $10,000 on a more modest piece of public art?\nThis is an old response to (or component of) utilitarianism: something like, can we really justify buying new clothes or going on vacations or even spending an extra few bucks on an expensive coffee drink when that money could be feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, providing life-saving medical care, etc.\nAnd I'm not totally sure how to square this. Intuitively, it seems kind of wrong to say we ought to eschew all luxury -- that just about anything we do beyond the satisfaction of our needs is wrong as long as there are people whose needs aren't met. A lot of the texture of life comes from little excesses here and there, and any normative ethical theory that demands us to give up all but the barest comforts just feels wrong (or at the very least, it seems too demanding to really be of much practical use). But at the same time, if we believe an act is good inasmuch as it maximizes happiness or reduces suffering, it does seem to follow that just about any leisure or luxury we engage in is immoral (unless you genuinely think there's more utility in, say, chugging a latte than in providing a malaria shot to some kid in rural Nigeria -- or more utility in sitting at home watching Netflix instead of, say, manning a soup kitchen). \nI guess, like you said, there's still the issue of scale. Spending $1.5 billion on the 9/11 memorial piece is more wrong than going out for a fancy dinner (or commissioning a less extravagant piece), in the same sense that stealing your friend's car is worse than stealing a french fry off his plate.", ">\n\nAt the same time, art is an easy distraction when it comes time to criticize wasteful spending. \nPlenty more is wasted on projects that achieve far less (which is saying something) due to corruption, inefficiency, lack of oversight, etc. \nHow much is lost as a result of a financial system fluctuating for seemingly no reason on any given day? How much has been spent to support these institutions? How much of the problems we're concerned with were created as a direct result of these institutions and the lack of adequate regulation?\nI'm not saying your points aren't valid, nor that someone who's struggling in these communities shouldn't feel pissed off when they see this statue, but just that possibly as a result of art being what it is, it's easy to make it a symbol in a way that draws more attention than arguably far more relevant issues.", ">\n\nI want to be clear, I'm not coming out against public art (and frankly, I actually appreciate this humungous arm sculpture). I guess more than anything, I'm just playing devil's advocate or talking through some challenges I have with my own normative ethical framework. As much as I value beautiful things, it seems wrong to install a big, expensive, fuck-off statue when people might be living in tents on the same street. But at the same time, it feels wrong to say indulging in aesthetics is immoral as long as there's a single person who's not getting enough to eat. \nI agree though, I think there's a lot more waste in commerce than in art, and we don't really account for that waste because it's less visible and it's taking place in a sphere that's meant to be productive.", ">\n\nY’all really made a monument to MLK where his head is missing?", ">\n\nand based on a picture of him hugging his wife who he routinely cheated on. Everything this statue highlights and ignores is weird.", ">\n\nAnd, to add that last little bit of insult to injury, it doesn't even get the pose right from the picture.", ">\n\nIt makes more sense now that I see the photo that inspired it, but it's still odd looking and too large. It dominates the space.", ">\n\nYou really like those fighters, don't you?", ">\n\nI mean if you’re talking about dominating space you really can’t avoid discussing the tactical advantages that the F-104 Starfighter brings to the table", ">\n\nAt quick glance it looks like hands covering an asshole (excuse my language)", ">\n\nIt's Reddit, you're excused.", ">\n\n\"MLK monument has Boston up in arms\"\ni mean, c'mon - it was right there", ">\n\nDid they have like a mock prototype before building this thing? No one sat there and said, “maybe this doesn’t look all that great.”", ">\n\nMore than likely they did, and I guarantee all the mock-ups showed one specific angle where the art works. No one in charged thought to ask how it would look at different angles or just assumed it would make sense once you take in the whole thing. It’s also way easier to make a pitch and sway concerns to a small limited audience over the larger general public. \nAlso, I’d be money the mock-ups looked slightly different than the end result. Things change when reality strikes. Material cost change so things get scaled back, maybe there were other elements like lights or accent pieces to direct viewer’s eyes but got cut due to budget reasons. \nMore than likely though, the people in charge had no idea what “good” art is and just wanted something. There was no oversight, no real check ins, and anytime the artist said something it probably went in one ear and out the other. “Sounds good, just get it done”.", ">\n\nThe backstory to this and the artist, was on CBS Sunday Morning back in December. It should be on You Tube if anyone is interested. The aluminum cast that the assistants were polishing before it was dipped in bronze, looked a lot better; eventhough it reminded you of the \"Bean\" in Grant Park in Chicago. The final version doesn't even have the reflective finish the entry picture said it would.\nThe main problem for me, is that it's based off a picture of Dr. King that vast majority of people haven't seen, so wouldn't immediate associate with him. I think the artist was thinking more about his personal feelings, than how the general publoc could relate.\nThat being said, the last two finalists on that list were BEAUTIFUL and interactive. I just can't understand what the selection committee was thinking.", ">\n\nGive me $10mil and I’ll do better", ">\n\nI'll do the job for half that", ">\n\nI'll do it for a third of 10mil. But, I'll need half that up front for materials, other half on completion. I'll get started just as soon as that first check clears. Trust me!", ">\n\nJust buy 3 small squadron of F-104 Starfighters\nEveryone will be happier\nEasier to fight racism with a fighter jet", ">\n\nHuh... can't argue with that logic!", ">\n\nA complete miss in it’s conception, execution and intention.", ">\n\nbut a very successful reach-around, from certain angles.", ">\n\nOMG a reach-around is exactly what I thought the sculpture looked like, lol", ">\n\nWithout reading headlines, my first reaction to this monument was 'why did somebody make a sculpture of someone stuffing their head up their own ass'\nEdit: typo", ">\n\nOmg, I am crying-laughing right now!", ">\n\nMy throat's hurting from laughing so hard.", ">\n\nIt's honestly pretty bad. If nobody knows what they are looking at then the statue is a bust.", ">\n\nCan't be a bust, there's no head anywhere on it.", ">\n\nOh from some of the assessments of it I've seen on Twitter there's definitely head." ]

[ "Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”\n“If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.\n\nThe first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful.", ">\n\nThe first view I saw of it looked like two arms holding up the biggest butt log in history.", ">\n\nRandy Marsh was here", ">\n\nI wonder how many Bonos that statue weighs 🤔", ">\n\nCourics! (I know what I'm talking about, im from zurich)", ">\n\nDoes Bono want the bitty?", ">\n\nEasy, Bono, that hurts the bitty!\nBono: BIT-TY!!", ">\n\nI’ll be honest it isn’t my taste, the MLK granite head in DC is much better.", ">\n\nThe head that is almost his whole body?", ">\n\n\"excuse me, sir. you're sitting on my body, which is also my face\"", ">\n\nIs butt legs?", ">\n\nButt is definitely legs.", ">\n\nIt's like a five-dimensional creature eating itself.\n\nEmbrace Boston, a nonprofit organization that works toward racial and economic justice and is a part of the Boston Foundation, helped provide resources and $10.5 million in funds, including a maintenance fund, for “The Embrace” and the Freedom Plaza.", ">\n\nDear god, think how far 10 mil could go toward education or helping homeless people or providing services to the addicted. This makes me pretty sick. It's both ugly and incomprehensible. Even a stick figure lets you know what it is.", ">\n\nThis. I understand the need to memorialize but it seems insensitive to sink millions into remembering the dead when that money could be used to help the living. If they are important then we should make sure to teach their history to younger generations, not build a statue many will never see. Malcolm Gadwell did a great episode these kind of situations and the dark reality of how those funds could be better implemented", ">\n\nI don’t necessarily disagree, but couldn’t we make this same argument for every dollar spent on arts or decoration or even personal luxuries?", ">\n\nIt's the classic slippery slope situation. Again, I do not do this argument as much justice as Malcolm Gladwell does in his podcast episode but it's less about expenses and more about extreme expenses like what this statue cost. His example is of the 9/11 memorial and the cost and extreme disruption it caused NYC and the hard question of its true worth; it's an extremely interesting conversation and I encourage people to give it a listen. \nArt will also always be tricky because of the influx of wealthy people who use it as a tool for tax write-offs and consolidating wealth. It's tricky, but I'm just curious to know more. Who donated the money for this statue, why did they donate, did they know this was were the money was going towards, and so on. I'd rather know how these decisions came about rather than just be mad at the consequences; without that insight the same mistakes will keep getting made.", ">\n\nI don't think it's necessarily a slippery slope, I'm just asking us to apply the principle consistently. Any dollar spent on luxury or decoration could instead be spent providing necessities to people who lack them, and if it's immoral to spend $10 million on some humungous arm statue, isn't it also immoral to spend $10,000 on a more modest piece of public art?\nThis is an old response to (or component of) utilitarianism: something like, can we really justify buying new clothes or going on vacations or even spending an extra few bucks on an expensive coffee drink when that money could be feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, providing life-saving medical care, etc.\nAnd I'm not totally sure how to square this. Intuitively, it seems kind of wrong to say we ought to eschew all luxury -- that just about anything we do beyond the satisfaction of our needs is wrong as long as there are people whose needs aren't met. A lot of the texture of life comes from little excesses here and there, and any normative ethical theory that demands us to give up all but the barest comforts just feels wrong (or at the very least, it seems too demanding to really be of much practical use). But at the same time, if we believe an act is good inasmuch as it maximizes happiness or reduces suffering, it does seem to follow that just about any leisure or luxury we engage in is immoral (unless you genuinely think there's more utility in, say, chugging a latte than in providing a malaria shot to some kid in rural Nigeria -- or more utility in sitting at home watching Netflix instead of, say, manning a soup kitchen). \nI guess, like you said, there's still the issue of scale. Spending $1.5 billion on the 9/11 memorial piece is more wrong than going out for a fancy dinner (or commissioning a less extravagant piece), in the same sense that stealing your friend's car is worse than stealing a french fry off his plate.", ">\n\nAt the same time, art is an easy distraction when it comes time to criticize wasteful spending. \nPlenty more is wasted on projects that achieve far less (which is saying something) due to corruption, inefficiency, lack of oversight, etc. \nHow much is lost as a result of a financial system fluctuating for seemingly no reason on any given day? How much has been spent to support these institutions? How much of the problems we're concerned with were created as a direct result of these institutions and the lack of adequate regulation?\nI'm not saying your points aren't valid, nor that someone who's struggling in these communities shouldn't feel pissed off when they see this statue, but just that possibly as a result of art being what it is, it's easy to make it a symbol in a way that draws more attention than arguably far more relevant issues.", ">\n\nI want to be clear, I'm not coming out against public art (and frankly, I actually appreciate this humungous arm sculpture). I guess more than anything, I'm just playing devil's advocate or talking through some challenges I have with my own normative ethical framework. As much as I value beautiful things, it seems wrong to install a big, expensive, fuck-off statue when people might be living in tents on the same street. But at the same time, it feels wrong to say indulging in aesthetics is immoral as long as there's a single person who's not getting enough to eat. \nI agree though, I think there's a lot more waste in commerce than in art, and we don't really account for that waste because it's less visible and it's taking place in a sphere that's meant to be productive.", ">\n\nY’all really made a monument to MLK where his head is missing?", ">\n\nand based on a picture of him hugging his wife who he routinely cheated on. Everything this statue highlights and ignores is weird.", ">\n\nAnd, to add that last little bit of insult to injury, it doesn't even get the pose right from the picture.", ">\n\nIt makes more sense now that I see the photo that inspired it, but it's still odd looking and too large. It dominates the space.", ">\n\nYou really like those fighters, don't you?", ">\n\nI mean if you’re talking about dominating space you really can’t avoid discussing the tactical advantages that the F-104 Starfighter brings to the table", ">\n\nAt quick glance it looks like hands covering an asshole (excuse my language)", ">\n\nIt's Reddit, you're excused.", ">\n\n\"MLK monument has Boston up in arms\"\ni mean, c'mon - it was right there", ">\n\nDid they have like a mock prototype before building this thing? No one sat there and said, “maybe this doesn’t look all that great.”", ">\n\nMore than likely they did, and I guarantee all the mock-ups showed one specific angle where the art works. No one in charged thought to ask how it would look at different angles or just assumed it would make sense once you take in the whole thing. It’s also way easier to make a pitch and sway concerns to a small limited audience over the larger general public. \nAlso, I’d be money the mock-ups looked slightly different than the end result. Things change when reality strikes. Material cost change so things get scaled back, maybe there were other elements like lights or accent pieces to direct viewer’s eyes but got cut due to budget reasons. \nMore than likely though, the people in charge had no idea what “good” art is and just wanted something. There was no oversight, no real check ins, and anytime the artist said something it probably went in one ear and out the other. “Sounds good, just get it done”.", ">\n\nThe backstory to this and the artist, was on CBS Sunday Morning back in December. It should be on You Tube if anyone is interested. The aluminum cast that the assistants were polishing before it was dipped in bronze, looked a lot better; eventhough it reminded you of the \"Bean\" in Grant Park in Chicago. The final version doesn't even have the reflective finish the entry picture said it would.\nThe main problem for me, is that it's based off a picture of Dr. King that vast majority of people haven't seen, so wouldn't immediate associate with him. I think the artist was thinking more about his personal feelings, than how the general publoc could relate.\nThat being said, the last two finalists on that list were BEAUTIFUL and interactive. I just can't understand what the selection committee was thinking.", ">\n\nGive me $10mil and I’ll do better", ">\n\nI'll do the job for half that", ">\n\nI'll do it for a third of 10mil. But, I'll need half that up front for materials, other half on completion. I'll get started just as soon as that first check clears. Trust me!", ">\n\nJust buy 3 small squadron of F-104 Starfighters\nEveryone will be happier\nEasier to fight racism with a fighter jet", ">\n\nHuh... can't argue with that logic!", ">\n\nA complete miss in it’s conception, execution and intention.", ">\n\nbut a very successful reach-around, from certain angles.", ">\n\nOMG a reach-around is exactly what I thought the sculpture looked like, lol", ">\n\nWithout reading headlines, my first reaction to this monument was 'why did somebody make a sculpture of someone stuffing their head up their own ass'\nEdit: typo", ">\n\nOmg, I am crying-laughing right now!", ">\n\nMy throat's hurting from laughing so hard.", ">\n\nIt's honestly pretty bad. If nobody knows what they are looking at then the statue is a bust.", ">\n\nCan't be a bust, there's no head anywhere on it.", ">\n\nOh from some of the assessments of it I've seen on Twitter there's definitely head.", ">\n\nWe could do something like police reform or stop racist gerrymandering but we get this instead. I'm sure MLK's dream was a weird statue of his and his wife's arms." ]

[ "Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”\n“If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.\n\nThe first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful.", ">\n\nThe first view I saw of it looked like two arms holding up the biggest butt log in history.", ">\n\nRandy Marsh was here", ">\n\nI wonder how many Bonos that statue weighs 🤔", ">\n\nCourics! (I know what I'm talking about, im from zurich)", ">\n\nDoes Bono want the bitty?", ">\n\nEasy, Bono, that hurts the bitty!\nBono: BIT-TY!!", ">\n\nI’ll be honest it isn’t my taste, the MLK granite head in DC is much better.", ">\n\nThe head that is almost his whole body?", ">\n\n\"excuse me, sir. you're sitting on my body, which is also my face\"", ">\n\nIs butt legs?", ">\n\nButt is definitely legs.", ">\n\nIt's like a five-dimensional creature eating itself.\n\nEmbrace Boston, a nonprofit organization that works toward racial and economic justice and is a part of the Boston Foundation, helped provide resources and $10.5 million in funds, including a maintenance fund, for “The Embrace” and the Freedom Plaza.", ">\n\nDear god, think how far 10 mil could go toward education or helping homeless people or providing services to the addicted. This makes me pretty sick. It's both ugly and incomprehensible. Even a stick figure lets you know what it is.", ">\n\nThis. I understand the need to memorialize but it seems insensitive to sink millions into remembering the dead when that money could be used to help the living. If they are important then we should make sure to teach their history to younger generations, not build a statue many will never see. Malcolm Gadwell did a great episode these kind of situations and the dark reality of how those funds could be better implemented", ">\n\nI don’t necessarily disagree, but couldn’t we make this same argument for every dollar spent on arts or decoration or even personal luxuries?", ">\n\nIt's the classic slippery slope situation. Again, I do not do this argument as much justice as Malcolm Gladwell does in his podcast episode but it's less about expenses and more about extreme expenses like what this statue cost. His example is of the 9/11 memorial and the cost and extreme disruption it caused NYC and the hard question of its true worth; it's an extremely interesting conversation and I encourage people to give it a listen. \nArt will also always be tricky because of the influx of wealthy people who use it as a tool for tax write-offs and consolidating wealth. It's tricky, but I'm just curious to know more. Who donated the money for this statue, why did they donate, did they know this was were the money was going towards, and so on. I'd rather know how these decisions came about rather than just be mad at the consequences; without that insight the same mistakes will keep getting made.", ">\n\nI don't think it's necessarily a slippery slope, I'm just asking us to apply the principle consistently. Any dollar spent on luxury or decoration could instead be spent providing necessities to people who lack them, and if it's immoral to spend $10 million on some humungous arm statue, isn't it also immoral to spend $10,000 on a more modest piece of public art?\nThis is an old response to (or component of) utilitarianism: something like, can we really justify buying new clothes or going on vacations or even spending an extra few bucks on an expensive coffee drink when that money could be feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, providing life-saving medical care, etc.\nAnd I'm not totally sure how to square this. Intuitively, it seems kind of wrong to say we ought to eschew all luxury -- that just about anything we do beyond the satisfaction of our needs is wrong as long as there are people whose needs aren't met. A lot of the texture of life comes from little excesses here and there, and any normative ethical theory that demands us to give up all but the barest comforts just feels wrong (or at the very least, it seems too demanding to really be of much practical use). But at the same time, if we believe an act is good inasmuch as it maximizes happiness or reduces suffering, it does seem to follow that just about any leisure or luxury we engage in is immoral (unless you genuinely think there's more utility in, say, chugging a latte than in providing a malaria shot to some kid in rural Nigeria -- or more utility in sitting at home watching Netflix instead of, say, manning a soup kitchen). \nI guess, like you said, there's still the issue of scale. Spending $1.5 billion on the 9/11 memorial piece is more wrong than going out for a fancy dinner (or commissioning a less extravagant piece), in the same sense that stealing your friend's car is worse than stealing a french fry off his plate.", ">\n\nAt the same time, art is an easy distraction when it comes time to criticize wasteful spending. \nPlenty more is wasted on projects that achieve far less (which is saying something) due to corruption, inefficiency, lack of oversight, etc. \nHow much is lost as a result of a financial system fluctuating for seemingly no reason on any given day? How much has been spent to support these institutions? How much of the problems we're concerned with were created as a direct result of these institutions and the lack of adequate regulation?\nI'm not saying your points aren't valid, nor that someone who's struggling in these communities shouldn't feel pissed off when they see this statue, but just that possibly as a result of art being what it is, it's easy to make it a symbol in a way that draws more attention than arguably far more relevant issues.", ">\n\nI want to be clear, I'm not coming out against public art (and frankly, I actually appreciate this humungous arm sculpture). I guess more than anything, I'm just playing devil's advocate or talking through some challenges I have with my own normative ethical framework. As much as I value beautiful things, it seems wrong to install a big, expensive, fuck-off statue when people might be living in tents on the same street. But at the same time, it feels wrong to say indulging in aesthetics is immoral as long as there's a single person who's not getting enough to eat. \nI agree though, I think there's a lot more waste in commerce than in art, and we don't really account for that waste because it's less visible and it's taking place in a sphere that's meant to be productive.", ">\n\nY’all really made a monument to MLK where his head is missing?", ">\n\nand based on a picture of him hugging his wife who he routinely cheated on. Everything this statue highlights and ignores is weird.", ">\n\nAnd, to add that last little bit of insult to injury, it doesn't even get the pose right from the picture.", ">\n\nIt makes more sense now that I see the photo that inspired it, but it's still odd looking and too large. It dominates the space.", ">\n\nYou really like those fighters, don't you?", ">\n\nI mean if you’re talking about dominating space you really can’t avoid discussing the tactical advantages that the F-104 Starfighter brings to the table", ">\n\nAt quick glance it looks like hands covering an asshole (excuse my language)", ">\n\nIt's Reddit, you're excused.", ">\n\n\"MLK monument has Boston up in arms\"\ni mean, c'mon - it was right there", ">\n\nDid they have like a mock prototype before building this thing? No one sat there and said, “maybe this doesn’t look all that great.”", ">\n\nMore than likely they did, and I guarantee all the mock-ups showed one specific angle where the art works. No one in charged thought to ask how it would look at different angles or just assumed it would make sense once you take in the whole thing. It’s also way easier to make a pitch and sway concerns to a small limited audience over the larger general public. \nAlso, I’d be money the mock-ups looked slightly different than the end result. Things change when reality strikes. Material cost change so things get scaled back, maybe there were other elements like lights or accent pieces to direct viewer’s eyes but got cut due to budget reasons. \nMore than likely though, the people in charge had no idea what “good” art is and just wanted something. There was no oversight, no real check ins, and anytime the artist said something it probably went in one ear and out the other. “Sounds good, just get it done”.", ">\n\nThe backstory to this and the artist, was on CBS Sunday Morning back in December. It should be on You Tube if anyone is interested. The aluminum cast that the assistants were polishing before it was dipped in bronze, looked a lot better; eventhough it reminded you of the \"Bean\" in Grant Park in Chicago. The final version doesn't even have the reflective finish the entry picture said it would.\nThe main problem for me, is that it's based off a picture of Dr. King that vast majority of people haven't seen, so wouldn't immediate associate with him. I think the artist was thinking more about his personal feelings, than how the general publoc could relate.\nThat being said, the last two finalists on that list were BEAUTIFUL and interactive. I just can't understand what the selection committee was thinking.", ">\n\nGive me $10mil and I’ll do better", ">\n\nI'll do the job for half that", ">\n\nI'll do it for a third of 10mil. But, I'll need half that up front for materials, other half on completion. I'll get started just as soon as that first check clears. Trust me!", ">\n\nJust buy 3 small squadron of F-104 Starfighters\nEveryone will be happier\nEasier to fight racism with a fighter jet", ">\n\nHuh... can't argue with that logic!", ">\n\nA complete miss in it’s conception, execution and intention.", ">\n\nbut a very successful reach-around, from certain angles.", ">\n\nOMG a reach-around is exactly what I thought the sculpture looked like, lol", ">\n\nWithout reading headlines, my first reaction to this monument was 'why did somebody make a sculpture of someone stuffing their head up their own ass'\nEdit: typo", ">\n\nOmg, I am crying-laughing right now!", ">\n\nMy throat's hurting from laughing so hard.", ">\n\nIt's honestly pretty bad. If nobody knows what they are looking at then the statue is a bust.", ">\n\nCan't be a bust, there's no head anywhere on it.", ">\n\nOh from some of the assessments of it I've seen on Twitter there's definitely head.", ">\n\nWe could do something like police reform or stop racist gerrymandering but we get this instead. I'm sure MLK's dream was a weird statue of his and his wife's arms.", ">\n\nBoston is one of the most redlined cities in America. Our black communities could REALLY use that $10m." ]

[ "Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”\n“If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.\n\nThe first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful.", ">\n\nThe first view I saw of it looked like two arms holding up the biggest butt log in history.", ">\n\nRandy Marsh was here", ">\n\nI wonder how many Bonos that statue weighs 🤔", ">\n\nCourics! (I know what I'm talking about, im from zurich)", ">\n\nDoes Bono want the bitty?", ">\n\nEasy, Bono, that hurts the bitty!\nBono: BIT-TY!!", ">\n\nI’ll be honest it isn’t my taste, the MLK granite head in DC is much better.", ">\n\nThe head that is almost his whole body?", ">\n\n\"excuse me, sir. you're sitting on my body, which is also my face\"", ">\n\nIs butt legs?", ">\n\nButt is definitely legs.", ">\n\nIt's like a five-dimensional creature eating itself.\n\nEmbrace Boston, a nonprofit organization that works toward racial and economic justice and is a part of the Boston Foundation, helped provide resources and $10.5 million in funds, including a maintenance fund, for “The Embrace” and the Freedom Plaza.", ">\n\nDear god, think how far 10 mil could go toward education or helping homeless people or providing services to the addicted. This makes me pretty sick. It's both ugly and incomprehensible. Even a stick figure lets you know what it is.", ">\n\nThis. I understand the need to memorialize but it seems insensitive to sink millions into remembering the dead when that money could be used to help the living. If they are important then we should make sure to teach their history to younger generations, not build a statue many will never see. Malcolm Gadwell did a great episode these kind of situations and the dark reality of how those funds could be better implemented", ">\n\nI don’t necessarily disagree, but couldn’t we make this same argument for every dollar spent on arts or decoration or even personal luxuries?", ">\n\nIt's the classic slippery slope situation. Again, I do not do this argument as much justice as Malcolm Gladwell does in his podcast episode but it's less about expenses and more about extreme expenses like what this statue cost. His example is of the 9/11 memorial and the cost and extreme disruption it caused NYC and the hard question of its true worth; it's an extremely interesting conversation and I encourage people to give it a listen. \nArt will also always be tricky because of the influx of wealthy people who use it as a tool for tax write-offs and consolidating wealth. It's tricky, but I'm just curious to know more. Who donated the money for this statue, why did they donate, did they know this was were the money was going towards, and so on. I'd rather know how these decisions came about rather than just be mad at the consequences; without that insight the same mistakes will keep getting made.", ">\n\nI don't think it's necessarily a slippery slope, I'm just asking us to apply the principle consistently. Any dollar spent on luxury or decoration could instead be spent providing necessities to people who lack them, and if it's immoral to spend $10 million on some humungous arm statue, isn't it also immoral to spend $10,000 on a more modest piece of public art?\nThis is an old response to (or component of) utilitarianism: something like, can we really justify buying new clothes or going on vacations or even spending an extra few bucks on an expensive coffee drink when that money could be feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, providing life-saving medical care, etc.\nAnd I'm not totally sure how to square this. Intuitively, it seems kind of wrong to say we ought to eschew all luxury -- that just about anything we do beyond the satisfaction of our needs is wrong as long as there are people whose needs aren't met. A lot of the texture of life comes from little excesses here and there, and any normative ethical theory that demands us to give up all but the barest comforts just feels wrong (or at the very least, it seems too demanding to really be of much practical use). But at the same time, if we believe an act is good inasmuch as it maximizes happiness or reduces suffering, it does seem to follow that just about any leisure or luxury we engage in is immoral (unless you genuinely think there's more utility in, say, chugging a latte than in providing a malaria shot to some kid in rural Nigeria -- or more utility in sitting at home watching Netflix instead of, say, manning a soup kitchen). \nI guess, like you said, there's still the issue of scale. Spending $1.5 billion on the 9/11 memorial piece is more wrong than going out for a fancy dinner (or commissioning a less extravagant piece), in the same sense that stealing your friend's car is worse than stealing a french fry off his plate.", ">\n\nAt the same time, art is an easy distraction when it comes time to criticize wasteful spending. \nPlenty more is wasted on projects that achieve far less (which is saying something) due to corruption, inefficiency, lack of oversight, etc. \nHow much is lost as a result of a financial system fluctuating for seemingly no reason on any given day? How much has been spent to support these institutions? How much of the problems we're concerned with were created as a direct result of these institutions and the lack of adequate regulation?\nI'm not saying your points aren't valid, nor that someone who's struggling in these communities shouldn't feel pissed off when they see this statue, but just that possibly as a result of art being what it is, it's easy to make it a symbol in a way that draws more attention than arguably far more relevant issues.", ">\n\nI want to be clear, I'm not coming out against public art (and frankly, I actually appreciate this humungous arm sculpture). I guess more than anything, I'm just playing devil's advocate or talking through some challenges I have with my own normative ethical framework. As much as I value beautiful things, it seems wrong to install a big, expensive, fuck-off statue when people might be living in tents on the same street. But at the same time, it feels wrong to say indulging in aesthetics is immoral as long as there's a single person who's not getting enough to eat. \nI agree though, I think there's a lot more waste in commerce than in art, and we don't really account for that waste because it's less visible and it's taking place in a sphere that's meant to be productive.", ">\n\nY’all really made a monument to MLK where his head is missing?", ">\n\nand based on a picture of him hugging his wife who he routinely cheated on. Everything this statue highlights and ignores is weird.", ">\n\nAnd, to add that last little bit of insult to injury, it doesn't even get the pose right from the picture.", ">\n\nIt makes more sense now that I see the photo that inspired it, but it's still odd looking and too large. It dominates the space.", ">\n\nYou really like those fighters, don't you?", ">\n\nI mean if you’re talking about dominating space you really can’t avoid discussing the tactical advantages that the F-104 Starfighter brings to the table", ">\n\nAt quick glance it looks like hands covering an asshole (excuse my language)", ">\n\nIt's Reddit, you're excused.", ">\n\n\"MLK monument has Boston up in arms\"\ni mean, c'mon - it was right there", ">\n\nDid they have like a mock prototype before building this thing? No one sat there and said, “maybe this doesn’t look all that great.”", ">\n\nMore than likely they did, and I guarantee all the mock-ups showed one specific angle where the art works. No one in charged thought to ask how it would look at different angles or just assumed it would make sense once you take in the whole thing. It’s also way easier to make a pitch and sway concerns to a small limited audience over the larger general public. \nAlso, I’d be money the mock-ups looked slightly different than the end result. Things change when reality strikes. Material cost change so things get scaled back, maybe there were other elements like lights or accent pieces to direct viewer’s eyes but got cut due to budget reasons. \nMore than likely though, the people in charge had no idea what “good” art is and just wanted something. There was no oversight, no real check ins, and anytime the artist said something it probably went in one ear and out the other. “Sounds good, just get it done”.", ">\n\nThe backstory to this and the artist, was on CBS Sunday Morning back in December. It should be on You Tube if anyone is interested. The aluminum cast that the assistants were polishing before it was dipped in bronze, looked a lot better; eventhough it reminded you of the \"Bean\" in Grant Park in Chicago. The final version doesn't even have the reflective finish the entry picture said it would.\nThe main problem for me, is that it's based off a picture of Dr. King that vast majority of people haven't seen, so wouldn't immediate associate with him. I think the artist was thinking more about his personal feelings, than how the general publoc could relate.\nThat being said, the last two finalists on that list were BEAUTIFUL and interactive. I just can't understand what the selection committee was thinking.", ">\n\nGive me $10mil and I’ll do better", ">\n\nI'll do the job for half that", ">\n\nI'll do it for a third of 10mil. But, I'll need half that up front for materials, other half on completion. I'll get started just as soon as that first check clears. Trust me!", ">\n\nJust buy 3 small squadron of F-104 Starfighters\nEveryone will be happier\nEasier to fight racism with a fighter jet", ">\n\nHuh... can't argue with that logic!", ">\n\nA complete miss in it’s conception, execution and intention.", ">\n\nbut a very successful reach-around, from certain angles.", ">\n\nOMG a reach-around is exactly what I thought the sculpture looked like, lol", ">\n\nWithout reading headlines, my first reaction to this monument was 'why did somebody make a sculpture of someone stuffing their head up their own ass'\nEdit: typo", ">\n\nOmg, I am crying-laughing right now!", ">\n\nMy throat's hurting from laughing so hard.", ">\n\nIt's honestly pretty bad. If nobody knows what they are looking at then the statue is a bust.", ">\n\nCan't be a bust, there's no head anywhere on it.", ">\n\nOh from some of the assessments of it I've seen on Twitter there's definitely head.", ">\n\nWe could do something like police reform or stop racist gerrymandering but we get this instead. I'm sure MLK's dream was a weird statue of his and his wife's arms.", ">\n\nBoston is one of the most redlined cities in America. Our black communities could REALLY use that $10m.", ">\n\nFuck, they could have built a better statue and still had $9mil left for good causes." ]

[ "Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”\n“If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.\n\nThe first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful.", ">\n\nThe first view I saw of it looked like two arms holding up the biggest butt log in history.", ">\n\nRandy Marsh was here", ">\n\nI wonder how many Bonos that statue weighs 🤔", ">\n\nCourics! (I know what I'm talking about, im from zurich)", ">\n\nDoes Bono want the bitty?", ">\n\nEasy, Bono, that hurts the bitty!\nBono: BIT-TY!!", ">\n\nI’ll be honest it isn’t my taste, the MLK granite head in DC is much better.", ">\n\nThe head that is almost his whole body?", ">\n\n\"excuse me, sir. you're sitting on my body, which is also my face\"", ">\n\nIs butt legs?", ">\n\nButt is definitely legs.", ">\n\nIt's like a five-dimensional creature eating itself.\n\nEmbrace Boston, a nonprofit organization that works toward racial and economic justice and is a part of the Boston Foundation, helped provide resources and $10.5 million in funds, including a maintenance fund, for “The Embrace” and the Freedom Plaza.", ">\n\nDear god, think how far 10 mil could go toward education or helping homeless people or providing services to the addicted. This makes me pretty sick. It's both ugly and incomprehensible. Even a stick figure lets you know what it is.", ">\n\nThis. I understand the need to memorialize but it seems insensitive to sink millions into remembering the dead when that money could be used to help the living. If they are important then we should make sure to teach their history to younger generations, not build a statue many will never see. Malcolm Gadwell did a great episode these kind of situations and the dark reality of how those funds could be better implemented", ">\n\nI don’t necessarily disagree, but couldn’t we make this same argument for every dollar spent on arts or decoration or even personal luxuries?", ">\n\nIt's the classic slippery slope situation. Again, I do not do this argument as much justice as Malcolm Gladwell does in his podcast episode but it's less about expenses and more about extreme expenses like what this statue cost. His example is of the 9/11 memorial and the cost and extreme disruption it caused NYC and the hard question of its true worth; it's an extremely interesting conversation and I encourage people to give it a listen. \nArt will also always be tricky because of the influx of wealthy people who use it as a tool for tax write-offs and consolidating wealth. It's tricky, but I'm just curious to know more. Who donated the money for this statue, why did they donate, did they know this was were the money was going towards, and so on. I'd rather know how these decisions came about rather than just be mad at the consequences; without that insight the same mistakes will keep getting made.", ">\n\nI don't think it's necessarily a slippery slope, I'm just asking us to apply the principle consistently. Any dollar spent on luxury or decoration could instead be spent providing necessities to people who lack them, and if it's immoral to spend $10 million on some humungous arm statue, isn't it also immoral to spend $10,000 on a more modest piece of public art?\nThis is an old response to (or component of) utilitarianism: something like, can we really justify buying new clothes or going on vacations or even spending an extra few bucks on an expensive coffee drink when that money could be feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, providing life-saving medical care, etc.\nAnd I'm not totally sure how to square this. Intuitively, it seems kind of wrong to say we ought to eschew all luxury -- that just about anything we do beyond the satisfaction of our needs is wrong as long as there are people whose needs aren't met. A lot of the texture of life comes from little excesses here and there, and any normative ethical theory that demands us to give up all but the barest comforts just feels wrong (or at the very least, it seems too demanding to really be of much practical use). But at the same time, if we believe an act is good inasmuch as it maximizes happiness or reduces suffering, it does seem to follow that just about any leisure or luxury we engage in is immoral (unless you genuinely think there's more utility in, say, chugging a latte than in providing a malaria shot to some kid in rural Nigeria -- or more utility in sitting at home watching Netflix instead of, say, manning a soup kitchen). \nI guess, like you said, there's still the issue of scale. Spending $1.5 billion on the 9/11 memorial piece is more wrong than going out for a fancy dinner (or commissioning a less extravagant piece), in the same sense that stealing your friend's car is worse than stealing a french fry off his plate.", ">\n\nAt the same time, art is an easy distraction when it comes time to criticize wasteful spending. \nPlenty more is wasted on projects that achieve far less (which is saying something) due to corruption, inefficiency, lack of oversight, etc. \nHow much is lost as a result of a financial system fluctuating for seemingly no reason on any given day? How much has been spent to support these institutions? How much of the problems we're concerned with were created as a direct result of these institutions and the lack of adequate regulation?\nI'm not saying your points aren't valid, nor that someone who's struggling in these communities shouldn't feel pissed off when they see this statue, but just that possibly as a result of art being what it is, it's easy to make it a symbol in a way that draws more attention than arguably far more relevant issues.", ">\n\nI want to be clear, I'm not coming out against public art (and frankly, I actually appreciate this humungous arm sculpture). I guess more than anything, I'm just playing devil's advocate or talking through some challenges I have with my own normative ethical framework. As much as I value beautiful things, it seems wrong to install a big, expensive, fuck-off statue when people might be living in tents on the same street. But at the same time, it feels wrong to say indulging in aesthetics is immoral as long as there's a single person who's not getting enough to eat. \nI agree though, I think there's a lot more waste in commerce than in art, and we don't really account for that waste because it's less visible and it's taking place in a sphere that's meant to be productive.", ">\n\nY’all really made a monument to MLK where his head is missing?", ">\n\nand based on a picture of him hugging his wife who he routinely cheated on. Everything this statue highlights and ignores is weird.", ">\n\nAnd, to add that last little bit of insult to injury, it doesn't even get the pose right from the picture.", ">\n\nIt makes more sense now that I see the photo that inspired it, but it's still odd looking and too large. It dominates the space.", ">\n\nYou really like those fighters, don't you?", ">\n\nI mean if you’re talking about dominating space you really can’t avoid discussing the tactical advantages that the F-104 Starfighter brings to the table", ">\n\nAt quick glance it looks like hands covering an asshole (excuse my language)", ">\n\nIt's Reddit, you're excused.", ">\n\n\"MLK monument has Boston up in arms\"\ni mean, c'mon - it was right there", ">\n\nDid they have like a mock prototype before building this thing? No one sat there and said, “maybe this doesn’t look all that great.”", ">\n\nMore than likely they did, and I guarantee all the mock-ups showed one specific angle where the art works. No one in charged thought to ask how it would look at different angles or just assumed it would make sense once you take in the whole thing. It’s also way easier to make a pitch and sway concerns to a small limited audience over the larger general public. \nAlso, I’d be money the mock-ups looked slightly different than the end result. Things change when reality strikes. Material cost change so things get scaled back, maybe there were other elements like lights or accent pieces to direct viewer’s eyes but got cut due to budget reasons. \nMore than likely though, the people in charge had no idea what “good” art is and just wanted something. There was no oversight, no real check ins, and anytime the artist said something it probably went in one ear and out the other. “Sounds good, just get it done”.", ">\n\nThe backstory to this and the artist, was on CBS Sunday Morning back in December. It should be on You Tube if anyone is interested. The aluminum cast that the assistants were polishing before it was dipped in bronze, looked a lot better; eventhough it reminded you of the \"Bean\" in Grant Park in Chicago. The final version doesn't even have the reflective finish the entry picture said it would.\nThe main problem for me, is that it's based off a picture of Dr. King that vast majority of people haven't seen, so wouldn't immediate associate with him. I think the artist was thinking more about his personal feelings, than how the general publoc could relate.\nThat being said, the last two finalists on that list were BEAUTIFUL and interactive. I just can't understand what the selection committee was thinking.", ">\n\nGive me $10mil and I’ll do better", ">\n\nI'll do the job for half that", ">\n\nI'll do it for a third of 10mil. But, I'll need half that up front for materials, other half on completion. I'll get started just as soon as that first check clears. Trust me!", ">\n\nJust buy 3 small squadron of F-104 Starfighters\nEveryone will be happier\nEasier to fight racism with a fighter jet", ">\n\nHuh... can't argue with that logic!", ">\n\nA complete miss in it’s conception, execution and intention.", ">\n\nbut a very successful reach-around, from certain angles.", ">\n\nOMG a reach-around is exactly what I thought the sculpture looked like, lol", ">\n\nWithout reading headlines, my first reaction to this monument was 'why did somebody make a sculpture of someone stuffing their head up their own ass'\nEdit: typo", ">\n\nOmg, I am crying-laughing right now!", ">\n\nMy throat's hurting from laughing so hard.", ">\n\nIt's honestly pretty bad. If nobody knows what they are looking at then the statue is a bust.", ">\n\nCan't be a bust, there's no head anywhere on it.", ">\n\nOh from some of the assessments of it I've seen on Twitter there's definitely head.", ">\n\nWe could do something like police reform or stop racist gerrymandering but we get this instead. I'm sure MLK's dream was a weird statue of his and his wife's arms.", ">\n\nBoston is one of the most redlined cities in America. Our black communities could REALLY use that $10m.", ">\n\nFuck, they could have built a better statue and still had $9mil left for good causes.", ">\n\nThe first photo of it I saw was from single angle, and good chunk of it was hidden by the fence, you could only see the top part of it. So, I was like, OK, somebody figured out particular angle to make it look bad in order to mock it.\nBut now that it is fully visible and I saw many more photos of it from different angles... Yeah, I don't think the concept really worked well in this particular case. This is where artist should have been like \"OK, this doesn't really work all that well, I should either put more work into it, or try some different idea.\"" ]

[ "Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”\n“If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.\n\nThe first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful.", ">\n\nThe first view I saw of it looked like two arms holding up the biggest butt log in history.", ">\n\nRandy Marsh was here", ">\n\nI wonder how many Bonos that statue weighs 🤔", ">\n\nCourics! (I know what I'm talking about, im from zurich)", ">\n\nDoes Bono want the bitty?", ">\n\nEasy, Bono, that hurts the bitty!\nBono: BIT-TY!!", ">\n\nI’ll be honest it isn’t my taste, the MLK granite head in DC is much better.", ">\n\nThe head that is almost his whole body?", ">\n\n\"excuse me, sir. you're sitting on my body, which is also my face\"", ">\n\nIs butt legs?", ">\n\nButt is definitely legs.", ">\n\nIt's like a five-dimensional creature eating itself.\n\nEmbrace Boston, a nonprofit organization that works toward racial and economic justice and is a part of the Boston Foundation, helped provide resources and $10.5 million in funds, including a maintenance fund, for “The Embrace” and the Freedom Plaza.", ">\n\nDear god, think how far 10 mil could go toward education or helping homeless people or providing services to the addicted. This makes me pretty sick. It's both ugly and incomprehensible. Even a stick figure lets you know what it is.", ">\n\nThis. I understand the need to memorialize but it seems insensitive to sink millions into remembering the dead when that money could be used to help the living. If they are important then we should make sure to teach their history to younger generations, not build a statue many will never see. Malcolm Gadwell did a great episode these kind of situations and the dark reality of how those funds could be better implemented", ">\n\nI don’t necessarily disagree, but couldn’t we make this same argument for every dollar spent on arts or decoration or even personal luxuries?", ">\n\nIt's the classic slippery slope situation. Again, I do not do this argument as much justice as Malcolm Gladwell does in his podcast episode but it's less about expenses and more about extreme expenses like what this statue cost. His example is of the 9/11 memorial and the cost and extreme disruption it caused NYC and the hard question of its true worth; it's an extremely interesting conversation and I encourage people to give it a listen. \nArt will also always be tricky because of the influx of wealthy people who use it as a tool for tax write-offs and consolidating wealth. It's tricky, but I'm just curious to know more. Who donated the money for this statue, why did they donate, did they know this was were the money was going towards, and so on. I'd rather know how these decisions came about rather than just be mad at the consequences; without that insight the same mistakes will keep getting made.", ">\n\nI don't think it's necessarily a slippery slope, I'm just asking us to apply the principle consistently. Any dollar spent on luxury or decoration could instead be spent providing necessities to people who lack them, and if it's immoral to spend $10 million on some humungous arm statue, isn't it also immoral to spend $10,000 on a more modest piece of public art?\nThis is an old response to (or component of) utilitarianism: something like, can we really justify buying new clothes or going on vacations or even spending an extra few bucks on an expensive coffee drink when that money could be feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, providing life-saving medical care, etc.\nAnd I'm not totally sure how to square this. Intuitively, it seems kind of wrong to say we ought to eschew all luxury -- that just about anything we do beyond the satisfaction of our needs is wrong as long as there are people whose needs aren't met. A lot of the texture of life comes from little excesses here and there, and any normative ethical theory that demands us to give up all but the barest comforts just feels wrong (or at the very least, it seems too demanding to really be of much practical use). But at the same time, if we believe an act is good inasmuch as it maximizes happiness or reduces suffering, it does seem to follow that just about any leisure or luxury we engage in is immoral (unless you genuinely think there's more utility in, say, chugging a latte than in providing a malaria shot to some kid in rural Nigeria -- or more utility in sitting at home watching Netflix instead of, say, manning a soup kitchen). \nI guess, like you said, there's still the issue of scale. Spending $1.5 billion on the 9/11 memorial piece is more wrong than going out for a fancy dinner (or commissioning a less extravagant piece), in the same sense that stealing your friend's car is worse than stealing a french fry off his plate.", ">\n\nAt the same time, art is an easy distraction when it comes time to criticize wasteful spending. \nPlenty more is wasted on projects that achieve far less (which is saying something) due to corruption, inefficiency, lack of oversight, etc. \nHow much is lost as a result of a financial system fluctuating for seemingly no reason on any given day? How much has been spent to support these institutions? How much of the problems we're concerned with were created as a direct result of these institutions and the lack of adequate regulation?\nI'm not saying your points aren't valid, nor that someone who's struggling in these communities shouldn't feel pissed off when they see this statue, but just that possibly as a result of art being what it is, it's easy to make it a symbol in a way that draws more attention than arguably far more relevant issues.", ">\n\nI want to be clear, I'm not coming out against public art (and frankly, I actually appreciate this humungous arm sculpture). I guess more than anything, I'm just playing devil's advocate or talking through some challenges I have with my own normative ethical framework. As much as I value beautiful things, it seems wrong to install a big, expensive, fuck-off statue when people might be living in tents on the same street. But at the same time, it feels wrong to say indulging in aesthetics is immoral as long as there's a single person who's not getting enough to eat. \nI agree though, I think there's a lot more waste in commerce than in art, and we don't really account for that waste because it's less visible and it's taking place in a sphere that's meant to be productive.", ">\n\nY’all really made a monument to MLK where his head is missing?", ">\n\nand based on a picture of him hugging his wife who he routinely cheated on. Everything this statue highlights and ignores is weird.", ">\n\nAnd, to add that last little bit of insult to injury, it doesn't even get the pose right from the picture.", ">\n\nIt makes more sense now that I see the photo that inspired it, but it's still odd looking and too large. It dominates the space.", ">\n\nYou really like those fighters, don't you?", ">\n\nI mean if you’re talking about dominating space you really can’t avoid discussing the tactical advantages that the F-104 Starfighter brings to the table", ">\n\nAt quick glance it looks like hands covering an asshole (excuse my language)", ">\n\nIt's Reddit, you're excused.", ">\n\n\"MLK monument has Boston up in arms\"\ni mean, c'mon - it was right there", ">\n\nDid they have like a mock prototype before building this thing? No one sat there and said, “maybe this doesn’t look all that great.”", ">\n\nMore than likely they did, and I guarantee all the mock-ups showed one specific angle where the art works. No one in charged thought to ask how it would look at different angles or just assumed it would make sense once you take in the whole thing. It’s also way easier to make a pitch and sway concerns to a small limited audience over the larger general public. \nAlso, I’d be money the mock-ups looked slightly different than the end result. Things change when reality strikes. Material cost change so things get scaled back, maybe there were other elements like lights or accent pieces to direct viewer’s eyes but got cut due to budget reasons. \nMore than likely though, the people in charge had no idea what “good” art is and just wanted something. There was no oversight, no real check ins, and anytime the artist said something it probably went in one ear and out the other. “Sounds good, just get it done”.", ">\n\nThe backstory to this and the artist, was on CBS Sunday Morning back in December. It should be on You Tube if anyone is interested. The aluminum cast that the assistants were polishing before it was dipped in bronze, looked a lot better; eventhough it reminded you of the \"Bean\" in Grant Park in Chicago. The final version doesn't even have the reflective finish the entry picture said it would.\nThe main problem for me, is that it's based off a picture of Dr. King that vast majority of people haven't seen, so wouldn't immediate associate with him. I think the artist was thinking more about his personal feelings, than how the general publoc could relate.\nThat being said, the last two finalists on that list were BEAUTIFUL and interactive. I just can't understand what the selection committee was thinking.", ">\n\nGive me $10mil and I’ll do better", ">\n\nI'll do the job for half that", ">\n\nI'll do it for a third of 10mil. But, I'll need half that up front for materials, other half on completion. I'll get started just as soon as that first check clears. Trust me!", ">\n\nJust buy 3 small squadron of F-104 Starfighters\nEveryone will be happier\nEasier to fight racism with a fighter jet", ">\n\nHuh... can't argue with that logic!", ">\n\nA complete miss in it’s conception, execution and intention.", ">\n\nbut a very successful reach-around, from certain angles.", ">\n\nOMG a reach-around is exactly what I thought the sculpture looked like, lol", ">\n\nWithout reading headlines, my first reaction to this monument was 'why did somebody make a sculpture of someone stuffing their head up their own ass'\nEdit: typo", ">\n\nOmg, I am crying-laughing right now!", ">\n\nMy throat's hurting from laughing so hard.", ">\n\nIt's honestly pretty bad. If nobody knows what they are looking at then the statue is a bust.", ">\n\nCan't be a bust, there's no head anywhere on it.", ">\n\nOh from some of the assessments of it I've seen on Twitter there's definitely head.", ">\n\nWe could do something like police reform or stop racist gerrymandering but we get this instead. I'm sure MLK's dream was a weird statue of his and his wife's arms.", ">\n\nBoston is one of the most redlined cities in America. Our black communities could REALLY use that $10m.", ">\n\nFuck, they could have built a better statue and still had $9mil left for good causes.", ">\n\nThe first photo of it I saw was from single angle, and good chunk of it was hidden by the fence, you could only see the top part of it. So, I was like, OK, somebody figured out particular angle to make it look bad in order to mock it.\nBut now that it is fully visible and I saw many more photos of it from different angles... Yeah, I don't think the concept really worked well in this particular case. This is where artist should have been like \"OK, this doesn't really work all that well, I should either put more work into it, or try some different idea.\"", ">\n\nIt works from specific angles, but if your statur is in an open space it should look great from most angles." ]

[ "Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”\n“If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.\n\nThe first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful.", ">\n\nThe first view I saw of it looked like two arms holding up the biggest butt log in history.", ">\n\nRandy Marsh was here", ">\n\nI wonder how many Bonos that statue weighs 🤔", ">\n\nCourics! (I know what I'm talking about, im from zurich)", ">\n\nDoes Bono want the bitty?", ">\n\nEasy, Bono, that hurts the bitty!\nBono: BIT-TY!!", ">\n\nI’ll be honest it isn’t my taste, the MLK granite head in DC is much better.", ">\n\nThe head that is almost his whole body?", ">\n\n\"excuse me, sir. you're sitting on my body, which is also my face\"", ">\n\nIs butt legs?", ">\n\nButt is definitely legs.", ">\n\nIt's like a five-dimensional creature eating itself.\n\nEmbrace Boston, a nonprofit organization that works toward racial and economic justice and is a part of the Boston Foundation, helped provide resources and $10.5 million in funds, including a maintenance fund, for “The Embrace” and the Freedom Plaza.", ">\n\nDear god, think how far 10 mil could go toward education or helping homeless people or providing services to the addicted. This makes me pretty sick. It's both ugly and incomprehensible. Even a stick figure lets you know what it is.", ">\n\nThis. I understand the need to memorialize but it seems insensitive to sink millions into remembering the dead when that money could be used to help the living. If they are important then we should make sure to teach their history to younger generations, not build a statue many will never see. Malcolm Gadwell did a great episode these kind of situations and the dark reality of how those funds could be better implemented", ">\n\nI don’t necessarily disagree, but couldn’t we make this same argument for every dollar spent on arts or decoration or even personal luxuries?", ">\n\nIt's the classic slippery slope situation. Again, I do not do this argument as much justice as Malcolm Gladwell does in his podcast episode but it's less about expenses and more about extreme expenses like what this statue cost. His example is of the 9/11 memorial and the cost and extreme disruption it caused NYC and the hard question of its true worth; it's an extremely interesting conversation and I encourage people to give it a listen. \nArt will also always be tricky because of the influx of wealthy people who use it as a tool for tax write-offs and consolidating wealth. It's tricky, but I'm just curious to know more. Who donated the money for this statue, why did they donate, did they know this was were the money was going towards, and so on. I'd rather know how these decisions came about rather than just be mad at the consequences; without that insight the same mistakes will keep getting made.", ">\n\nI don't think it's necessarily a slippery slope, I'm just asking us to apply the principle consistently. Any dollar spent on luxury or decoration could instead be spent providing necessities to people who lack them, and if it's immoral to spend $10 million on some humungous arm statue, isn't it also immoral to spend $10,000 on a more modest piece of public art?\nThis is an old response to (or component of) utilitarianism: something like, can we really justify buying new clothes or going on vacations or even spending an extra few bucks on an expensive coffee drink when that money could be feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, providing life-saving medical care, etc.\nAnd I'm not totally sure how to square this. Intuitively, it seems kind of wrong to say we ought to eschew all luxury -- that just about anything we do beyond the satisfaction of our needs is wrong as long as there are people whose needs aren't met. A lot of the texture of life comes from little excesses here and there, and any normative ethical theory that demands us to give up all but the barest comforts just feels wrong (or at the very least, it seems too demanding to really be of much practical use). But at the same time, if we believe an act is good inasmuch as it maximizes happiness or reduces suffering, it does seem to follow that just about any leisure or luxury we engage in is immoral (unless you genuinely think there's more utility in, say, chugging a latte than in providing a malaria shot to some kid in rural Nigeria -- or more utility in sitting at home watching Netflix instead of, say, manning a soup kitchen). \nI guess, like you said, there's still the issue of scale. Spending $1.5 billion on the 9/11 memorial piece is more wrong than going out for a fancy dinner (or commissioning a less extravagant piece), in the same sense that stealing your friend's car is worse than stealing a french fry off his plate.", ">\n\nAt the same time, art is an easy distraction when it comes time to criticize wasteful spending. \nPlenty more is wasted on projects that achieve far less (which is saying something) due to corruption, inefficiency, lack of oversight, etc. \nHow much is lost as a result of a financial system fluctuating for seemingly no reason on any given day? How much has been spent to support these institutions? How much of the problems we're concerned with were created as a direct result of these institutions and the lack of adequate regulation?\nI'm not saying your points aren't valid, nor that someone who's struggling in these communities shouldn't feel pissed off when they see this statue, but just that possibly as a result of art being what it is, it's easy to make it a symbol in a way that draws more attention than arguably far more relevant issues.", ">\n\nI want to be clear, I'm not coming out against public art (and frankly, I actually appreciate this humungous arm sculpture). I guess more than anything, I'm just playing devil's advocate or talking through some challenges I have with my own normative ethical framework. As much as I value beautiful things, it seems wrong to install a big, expensive, fuck-off statue when people might be living in tents on the same street. But at the same time, it feels wrong to say indulging in aesthetics is immoral as long as there's a single person who's not getting enough to eat. \nI agree though, I think there's a lot more waste in commerce than in art, and we don't really account for that waste because it's less visible and it's taking place in a sphere that's meant to be productive.", ">\n\nY’all really made a monument to MLK where his head is missing?", ">\n\nand based on a picture of him hugging his wife who he routinely cheated on. Everything this statue highlights and ignores is weird.", ">\n\nAnd, to add that last little bit of insult to injury, it doesn't even get the pose right from the picture.", ">\n\nIt makes more sense now that I see the photo that inspired it, but it's still odd looking and too large. It dominates the space.", ">\n\nYou really like those fighters, don't you?", ">\n\nI mean if you’re talking about dominating space you really can’t avoid discussing the tactical advantages that the F-104 Starfighter brings to the table", ">\n\nAt quick glance it looks like hands covering an asshole (excuse my language)", ">\n\nIt's Reddit, you're excused.", ">\n\n\"MLK monument has Boston up in arms\"\ni mean, c'mon - it was right there", ">\n\nDid they have like a mock prototype before building this thing? No one sat there and said, “maybe this doesn’t look all that great.”", ">\n\nMore than likely they did, and I guarantee all the mock-ups showed one specific angle where the art works. No one in charged thought to ask how it would look at different angles or just assumed it would make sense once you take in the whole thing. It’s also way easier to make a pitch and sway concerns to a small limited audience over the larger general public. \nAlso, I’d be money the mock-ups looked slightly different than the end result. Things change when reality strikes. Material cost change so things get scaled back, maybe there were other elements like lights or accent pieces to direct viewer’s eyes but got cut due to budget reasons. \nMore than likely though, the people in charge had no idea what “good” art is and just wanted something. There was no oversight, no real check ins, and anytime the artist said something it probably went in one ear and out the other. “Sounds good, just get it done”.", ">\n\nThe backstory to this and the artist, was on CBS Sunday Morning back in December. It should be on You Tube if anyone is interested. The aluminum cast that the assistants were polishing before it was dipped in bronze, looked a lot better; eventhough it reminded you of the \"Bean\" in Grant Park in Chicago. The final version doesn't even have the reflective finish the entry picture said it would.\nThe main problem for me, is that it's based off a picture of Dr. King that vast majority of people haven't seen, so wouldn't immediate associate with him. I think the artist was thinking more about his personal feelings, than how the general publoc could relate.\nThat being said, the last two finalists on that list were BEAUTIFUL and interactive. I just can't understand what the selection committee was thinking.", ">\n\nGive me $10mil and I’ll do better", ">\n\nI'll do the job for half that", ">\n\nI'll do it for a third of 10mil. But, I'll need half that up front for materials, other half on completion. I'll get started just as soon as that first check clears. Trust me!", ">\n\nJust buy 3 small squadron of F-104 Starfighters\nEveryone will be happier\nEasier to fight racism with a fighter jet", ">\n\nHuh... can't argue with that logic!", ">\n\nA complete miss in it’s conception, execution and intention.", ">\n\nbut a very successful reach-around, from certain angles.", ">\n\nOMG a reach-around is exactly what I thought the sculpture looked like, lol", ">\n\nWithout reading headlines, my first reaction to this monument was 'why did somebody make a sculpture of someone stuffing their head up their own ass'\nEdit: typo", ">\n\nOmg, I am crying-laughing right now!", ">\n\nMy throat's hurting from laughing so hard.", ">\n\nIt's honestly pretty bad. If nobody knows what they are looking at then the statue is a bust.", ">\n\nCan't be a bust, there's no head anywhere on it.", ">\n\nOh from some of the assessments of it I've seen on Twitter there's definitely head.", ">\n\nWe could do something like police reform or stop racist gerrymandering but we get this instead. I'm sure MLK's dream was a weird statue of his and his wife's arms.", ">\n\nBoston is one of the most redlined cities in America. Our black communities could REALLY use that $10m.", ">\n\nFuck, they could have built a better statue and still had $9mil left for good causes.", ">\n\nThe first photo of it I saw was from single angle, and good chunk of it was hidden by the fence, you could only see the top part of it. So, I was like, OK, somebody figured out particular angle to make it look bad in order to mock it.\nBut now that it is fully visible and I saw many more photos of it from different angles... Yeah, I don't think the concept really worked well in this particular case. This is where artist should have been like \"OK, this doesn't really work all that well, I should either put more work into it, or try some different idea.\"", ">\n\nIt works from specific angles, but if your statur is in an open space it should look great from most angles.", ">\n\nIt should have been a plaque with a graven image of Martin Luther King with the date every time foundations are able to donate the money that they instead would have spent on bad art. They could have spent that money with a bunch of different charitable foundations and had enough left over to employ somebody for the next 10 years to make sure that that donation money was spent correctly." ]

[ "Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”\n“If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.\n\nThe first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful.", ">\n\nThe first view I saw of it looked like two arms holding up the biggest butt log in history.", ">\n\nRandy Marsh was here", ">\n\nI wonder how many Bonos that statue weighs 🤔", ">\n\nCourics! (I know what I'm talking about, im from zurich)", ">\n\nDoes Bono want the bitty?", ">\n\nEasy, Bono, that hurts the bitty!\nBono: BIT-TY!!", ">\n\nI’ll be honest it isn’t my taste, the MLK granite head in DC is much better.", ">\n\nThe head that is almost his whole body?", ">\n\n\"excuse me, sir. you're sitting on my body, which is also my face\"", ">\n\nIs butt legs?", ">\n\nButt is definitely legs.", ">\n\nIt's like a five-dimensional creature eating itself.\n\nEmbrace Boston, a nonprofit organization that works toward racial and economic justice and is a part of the Boston Foundation, helped provide resources and $10.5 million in funds, including a maintenance fund, for “The Embrace” and the Freedom Plaza.", ">\n\nDear god, think how far 10 mil could go toward education or helping homeless people or providing services to the addicted. This makes me pretty sick. It's both ugly and incomprehensible. Even a stick figure lets you know what it is.", ">\n\nThis. I understand the need to memorialize but it seems insensitive to sink millions into remembering the dead when that money could be used to help the living. If they are important then we should make sure to teach their history to younger generations, not build a statue many will never see. Malcolm Gadwell did a great episode these kind of situations and the dark reality of how those funds could be better implemented", ">\n\nI don’t necessarily disagree, but couldn’t we make this same argument for every dollar spent on arts or decoration or even personal luxuries?", ">\n\nIt's the classic slippery slope situation. Again, I do not do this argument as much justice as Malcolm Gladwell does in his podcast episode but it's less about expenses and more about extreme expenses like what this statue cost. His example is of the 9/11 memorial and the cost and extreme disruption it caused NYC and the hard question of its true worth; it's an extremely interesting conversation and I encourage people to give it a listen. \nArt will also always be tricky because of the influx of wealthy people who use it as a tool for tax write-offs and consolidating wealth. It's tricky, but I'm just curious to know more. Who donated the money for this statue, why did they donate, did they know this was were the money was going towards, and so on. I'd rather know how these decisions came about rather than just be mad at the consequences; without that insight the same mistakes will keep getting made.", ">\n\nI don't think it's necessarily a slippery slope, I'm just asking us to apply the principle consistently. Any dollar spent on luxury or decoration could instead be spent providing necessities to people who lack them, and if it's immoral to spend $10 million on some humungous arm statue, isn't it also immoral to spend $10,000 on a more modest piece of public art?\nThis is an old response to (or component of) utilitarianism: something like, can we really justify buying new clothes or going on vacations or even spending an extra few bucks on an expensive coffee drink when that money could be feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, providing life-saving medical care, etc.\nAnd I'm not totally sure how to square this. Intuitively, it seems kind of wrong to say we ought to eschew all luxury -- that just about anything we do beyond the satisfaction of our needs is wrong as long as there are people whose needs aren't met. A lot of the texture of life comes from little excesses here and there, and any normative ethical theory that demands us to give up all but the barest comforts just feels wrong (or at the very least, it seems too demanding to really be of much practical use). But at the same time, if we believe an act is good inasmuch as it maximizes happiness or reduces suffering, it does seem to follow that just about any leisure or luxury we engage in is immoral (unless you genuinely think there's more utility in, say, chugging a latte than in providing a malaria shot to some kid in rural Nigeria -- or more utility in sitting at home watching Netflix instead of, say, manning a soup kitchen). \nI guess, like you said, there's still the issue of scale. Spending $1.5 billion on the 9/11 memorial piece is more wrong than going out for a fancy dinner (or commissioning a less extravagant piece), in the same sense that stealing your friend's car is worse than stealing a french fry off his plate.", ">\n\nAt the same time, art is an easy distraction when it comes time to criticize wasteful spending. \nPlenty more is wasted on projects that achieve far less (which is saying something) due to corruption, inefficiency, lack of oversight, etc. \nHow much is lost as a result of a financial system fluctuating for seemingly no reason on any given day? How much has been spent to support these institutions? How much of the problems we're concerned with were created as a direct result of these institutions and the lack of adequate regulation?\nI'm not saying your points aren't valid, nor that someone who's struggling in these communities shouldn't feel pissed off when they see this statue, but just that possibly as a result of art being what it is, it's easy to make it a symbol in a way that draws more attention than arguably far more relevant issues.", ">\n\nI want to be clear, I'm not coming out against public art (and frankly, I actually appreciate this humungous arm sculpture). I guess more than anything, I'm just playing devil's advocate or talking through some challenges I have with my own normative ethical framework. As much as I value beautiful things, it seems wrong to install a big, expensive, fuck-off statue when people might be living in tents on the same street. But at the same time, it feels wrong to say indulging in aesthetics is immoral as long as there's a single person who's not getting enough to eat. \nI agree though, I think there's a lot more waste in commerce than in art, and we don't really account for that waste because it's less visible and it's taking place in a sphere that's meant to be productive.", ">\n\nY’all really made a monument to MLK where his head is missing?", ">\n\nand based on a picture of him hugging his wife who he routinely cheated on. Everything this statue highlights and ignores is weird.", ">\n\nAnd, to add that last little bit of insult to injury, it doesn't even get the pose right from the picture.", ">\n\nIt makes more sense now that I see the photo that inspired it, but it's still odd looking and too large. It dominates the space.", ">\n\nYou really like those fighters, don't you?", ">\n\nI mean if you’re talking about dominating space you really can’t avoid discussing the tactical advantages that the F-104 Starfighter brings to the table", ">\n\nAt quick glance it looks like hands covering an asshole (excuse my language)", ">\n\nIt's Reddit, you're excused.", ">\n\n\"MLK monument has Boston up in arms\"\ni mean, c'mon - it was right there", ">\n\nDid they have like a mock prototype before building this thing? No one sat there and said, “maybe this doesn’t look all that great.”", ">\n\nMore than likely they did, and I guarantee all the mock-ups showed one specific angle where the art works. No one in charged thought to ask how it would look at different angles or just assumed it would make sense once you take in the whole thing. It’s also way easier to make a pitch and sway concerns to a small limited audience over the larger general public. \nAlso, I’d be money the mock-ups looked slightly different than the end result. Things change when reality strikes. Material cost change so things get scaled back, maybe there were other elements like lights or accent pieces to direct viewer’s eyes but got cut due to budget reasons. \nMore than likely though, the people in charge had no idea what “good” art is and just wanted something. There was no oversight, no real check ins, and anytime the artist said something it probably went in one ear and out the other. “Sounds good, just get it done”.", ">\n\nThe backstory to this and the artist, was on CBS Sunday Morning back in December. It should be on You Tube if anyone is interested. The aluminum cast that the assistants were polishing before it was dipped in bronze, looked a lot better; eventhough it reminded you of the \"Bean\" in Grant Park in Chicago. The final version doesn't even have the reflective finish the entry picture said it would.\nThe main problem for me, is that it's based off a picture of Dr. King that vast majority of people haven't seen, so wouldn't immediate associate with him. I think the artist was thinking more about his personal feelings, than how the general publoc could relate.\nThat being said, the last two finalists on that list were BEAUTIFUL and interactive. I just can't understand what the selection committee was thinking.", ">\n\nGive me $10mil and I’ll do better", ">\n\nI'll do the job for half that", ">\n\nI'll do it for a third of 10mil. But, I'll need half that up front for materials, other half on completion. I'll get started just as soon as that first check clears. Trust me!", ">\n\nJust buy 3 small squadron of F-104 Starfighters\nEveryone will be happier\nEasier to fight racism with a fighter jet", ">\n\nHuh... can't argue with that logic!", ">\n\nA complete miss in it’s conception, execution and intention.", ">\n\nbut a very successful reach-around, from certain angles.", ">\n\nOMG a reach-around is exactly what I thought the sculpture looked like, lol", ">\n\nWithout reading headlines, my first reaction to this monument was 'why did somebody make a sculpture of someone stuffing their head up their own ass'\nEdit: typo", ">\n\nOmg, I am crying-laughing right now!", ">\n\nMy throat's hurting from laughing so hard.", ">\n\nIt's honestly pretty bad. If nobody knows what they are looking at then the statue is a bust.", ">\n\nCan't be a bust, there's no head anywhere on it.", ">\n\nOh from some of the assessments of it I've seen on Twitter there's definitely head.", ">\n\nWe could do something like police reform or stop racist gerrymandering but we get this instead. I'm sure MLK's dream was a weird statue of his and his wife's arms.", ">\n\nBoston is one of the most redlined cities in America. Our black communities could REALLY use that $10m.", ">\n\nFuck, they could have built a better statue and still had $9mil left for good causes.", ">\n\nThe first photo of it I saw was from single angle, and good chunk of it was hidden by the fence, you could only see the top part of it. So, I was like, OK, somebody figured out particular angle to make it look bad in order to mock it.\nBut now that it is fully visible and I saw many more photos of it from different angles... Yeah, I don't think the concept really worked well in this particular case. This is where artist should have been like \"OK, this doesn't really work all that well, I should either put more work into it, or try some different idea.\"", ">\n\nIt works from specific angles, but if your statur is in an open space it should look great from most angles.", ">\n\nIt should have been a plaque with a graven image of Martin Luther King with the date every time foundations are able to donate the money that they instead would have spent on bad art. They could have spent that money with a bunch of different charitable foundations and had enough left over to employ somebody for the next 10 years to make sure that that donation money was spent correctly.", ">\n\nSo far, we're up to a giant penis, 69ing, and holding a giant clump of shit. What other interpretations of this...unique specimen are out there?" ]

[ "Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”\n“If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.\n\nThe first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful.", ">\n\nThe first view I saw of it looked like two arms holding up the biggest butt log in history.", ">\n\nRandy Marsh was here", ">\n\nI wonder how many Bonos that statue weighs 🤔", ">\n\nCourics! (I know what I'm talking about, im from zurich)", ">\n\nDoes Bono want the bitty?", ">\n\nEasy, Bono, that hurts the bitty!\nBono: BIT-TY!!", ">\n\nI’ll be honest it isn’t my taste, the MLK granite head in DC is much better.", ">\n\nThe head that is almost his whole body?", ">\n\n\"excuse me, sir. you're sitting on my body, which is also my face\"", ">\n\nIs butt legs?", ">\n\nButt is definitely legs.", ">\n\nIt's like a five-dimensional creature eating itself.\n\nEmbrace Boston, a nonprofit organization that works toward racial and economic justice and is a part of the Boston Foundation, helped provide resources and $10.5 million in funds, including a maintenance fund, for “The Embrace” and the Freedom Plaza.", ">\n\nDear god, think how far 10 mil could go toward education or helping homeless people or providing services to the addicted. This makes me pretty sick. It's both ugly and incomprehensible. Even a stick figure lets you know what it is.", ">\n\nThis. I understand the need to memorialize but it seems insensitive to sink millions into remembering the dead when that money could be used to help the living. If they are important then we should make sure to teach their history to younger generations, not build a statue many will never see. Malcolm Gadwell did a great episode these kind of situations and the dark reality of how those funds could be better implemented", ">\n\nI don’t necessarily disagree, but couldn’t we make this same argument for every dollar spent on arts or decoration or even personal luxuries?", ">\n\nIt's the classic slippery slope situation. Again, I do not do this argument as much justice as Malcolm Gladwell does in his podcast episode but it's less about expenses and more about extreme expenses like what this statue cost. His example is of the 9/11 memorial and the cost and extreme disruption it caused NYC and the hard question of its true worth; it's an extremely interesting conversation and I encourage people to give it a listen. \nArt will also always be tricky because of the influx of wealthy people who use it as a tool for tax write-offs and consolidating wealth. It's tricky, but I'm just curious to know more. Who donated the money for this statue, why did they donate, did they know this was were the money was going towards, and so on. I'd rather know how these decisions came about rather than just be mad at the consequences; without that insight the same mistakes will keep getting made.", ">\n\nI don't think it's necessarily a slippery slope, I'm just asking us to apply the principle consistently. Any dollar spent on luxury or decoration could instead be spent providing necessities to people who lack them, and if it's immoral to spend $10 million on some humungous arm statue, isn't it also immoral to spend $10,000 on a more modest piece of public art?\nThis is an old response to (or component of) utilitarianism: something like, can we really justify buying new clothes or going on vacations or even spending an extra few bucks on an expensive coffee drink when that money could be feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, providing life-saving medical care, etc.\nAnd I'm not totally sure how to square this. Intuitively, it seems kind of wrong to say we ought to eschew all luxury -- that just about anything we do beyond the satisfaction of our needs is wrong as long as there are people whose needs aren't met. A lot of the texture of life comes from little excesses here and there, and any normative ethical theory that demands us to give up all but the barest comforts just feels wrong (or at the very least, it seems too demanding to really be of much practical use). But at the same time, if we believe an act is good inasmuch as it maximizes happiness or reduces suffering, it does seem to follow that just about any leisure or luxury we engage in is immoral (unless you genuinely think there's more utility in, say, chugging a latte than in providing a malaria shot to some kid in rural Nigeria -- or more utility in sitting at home watching Netflix instead of, say, manning a soup kitchen). \nI guess, like you said, there's still the issue of scale. Spending $1.5 billion on the 9/11 memorial piece is more wrong than going out for a fancy dinner (or commissioning a less extravagant piece), in the same sense that stealing your friend's car is worse than stealing a french fry off his plate.", ">\n\nAt the same time, art is an easy distraction when it comes time to criticize wasteful spending. \nPlenty more is wasted on projects that achieve far less (which is saying something) due to corruption, inefficiency, lack of oversight, etc. \nHow much is lost as a result of a financial system fluctuating for seemingly no reason on any given day? How much has been spent to support these institutions? How much of the problems we're concerned with were created as a direct result of these institutions and the lack of adequate regulation?\nI'm not saying your points aren't valid, nor that someone who's struggling in these communities shouldn't feel pissed off when they see this statue, but just that possibly as a result of art being what it is, it's easy to make it a symbol in a way that draws more attention than arguably far more relevant issues.", ">\n\nI want to be clear, I'm not coming out against public art (and frankly, I actually appreciate this humungous arm sculpture). I guess more than anything, I'm just playing devil's advocate or talking through some challenges I have with my own normative ethical framework. As much as I value beautiful things, it seems wrong to install a big, expensive, fuck-off statue when people might be living in tents on the same street. But at the same time, it feels wrong to say indulging in aesthetics is immoral as long as there's a single person who's not getting enough to eat. \nI agree though, I think there's a lot more waste in commerce than in art, and we don't really account for that waste because it's less visible and it's taking place in a sphere that's meant to be productive.", ">\n\nY’all really made a monument to MLK where his head is missing?", ">\n\nand based on a picture of him hugging his wife who he routinely cheated on. Everything this statue highlights and ignores is weird.", ">\n\nAnd, to add that last little bit of insult to injury, it doesn't even get the pose right from the picture.", ">\n\nIt makes more sense now that I see the photo that inspired it, but it's still odd looking and too large. It dominates the space.", ">\n\nYou really like those fighters, don't you?", ">\n\nI mean if you’re talking about dominating space you really can’t avoid discussing the tactical advantages that the F-104 Starfighter brings to the table", ">\n\nAt quick glance it looks like hands covering an asshole (excuse my language)", ">\n\nIt's Reddit, you're excused.", ">\n\n\"MLK monument has Boston up in arms\"\ni mean, c'mon - it was right there", ">\n\nDid they have like a mock prototype before building this thing? No one sat there and said, “maybe this doesn’t look all that great.”", ">\n\nMore than likely they did, and I guarantee all the mock-ups showed one specific angle where the art works. No one in charged thought to ask how it would look at different angles or just assumed it would make sense once you take in the whole thing. It’s also way easier to make a pitch and sway concerns to a small limited audience over the larger general public. \nAlso, I’d be money the mock-ups looked slightly different than the end result. Things change when reality strikes. Material cost change so things get scaled back, maybe there were other elements like lights or accent pieces to direct viewer’s eyes but got cut due to budget reasons. \nMore than likely though, the people in charge had no idea what “good” art is and just wanted something. There was no oversight, no real check ins, and anytime the artist said something it probably went in one ear and out the other. “Sounds good, just get it done”.", ">\n\nThe backstory to this and the artist, was on CBS Sunday Morning back in December. It should be on You Tube if anyone is interested. The aluminum cast that the assistants were polishing before it was dipped in bronze, looked a lot better; eventhough it reminded you of the \"Bean\" in Grant Park in Chicago. The final version doesn't even have the reflective finish the entry picture said it would.\nThe main problem for me, is that it's based off a picture of Dr. King that vast majority of people haven't seen, so wouldn't immediate associate with him. I think the artist was thinking more about his personal feelings, than how the general publoc could relate.\nThat being said, the last two finalists on that list were BEAUTIFUL and interactive. I just can't understand what the selection committee was thinking.", ">\n\nGive me $10mil and I’ll do better", ">\n\nI'll do the job for half that", ">\n\nI'll do it for a third of 10mil. But, I'll need half that up front for materials, other half on completion. I'll get started just as soon as that first check clears. Trust me!", ">\n\nJust buy 3 small squadron of F-104 Starfighters\nEveryone will be happier\nEasier to fight racism with a fighter jet", ">\n\nHuh... can't argue with that logic!", ">\n\nA complete miss in it’s conception, execution and intention.", ">\n\nbut a very successful reach-around, from certain angles.", ">\n\nOMG a reach-around is exactly what I thought the sculpture looked like, lol", ">\n\nWithout reading headlines, my first reaction to this monument was 'why did somebody make a sculpture of someone stuffing their head up their own ass'\nEdit: typo", ">\n\nOmg, I am crying-laughing right now!", ">\n\nMy throat's hurting from laughing so hard.", ">\n\nIt's honestly pretty bad. If nobody knows what they are looking at then the statue is a bust.", ">\n\nCan't be a bust, there's no head anywhere on it.", ">\n\nOh from some of the assessments of it I've seen on Twitter there's definitely head.", ">\n\nWe could do something like police reform or stop racist gerrymandering but we get this instead. I'm sure MLK's dream was a weird statue of his and his wife's arms.", ">\n\nBoston is one of the most redlined cities in America. Our black communities could REALLY use that $10m.", ">\n\nFuck, they could have built a better statue and still had $9mil left for good causes.", ">\n\nThe first photo of it I saw was from single angle, and good chunk of it was hidden by the fence, you could only see the top part of it. So, I was like, OK, somebody figured out particular angle to make it look bad in order to mock it.\nBut now that it is fully visible and I saw many more photos of it from different angles... Yeah, I don't think the concept really worked well in this particular case. This is where artist should have been like \"OK, this doesn't really work all that well, I should either put more work into it, or try some different idea.\"", ">\n\nIt works from specific angles, but if your statur is in an open space it should look great from most angles.", ">\n\nIt should have been a plaque with a graven image of Martin Luther King with the date every time foundations are able to donate the money that they instead would have spent on bad art. They could have spent that money with a bunch of different charitable foundations and had enough left over to employ somebody for the next 10 years to make sure that that donation money was spent correctly.", ">\n\nSo far, we're up to a giant penis, 69ing, and holding a giant clump of shit. What other interpretations of this...unique specimen are out there?", ">\n\nYou forgot cunnilingus." ]

[ "Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”\n“If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.\n\nThe first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful.", ">\n\nThe first view I saw of it looked like two arms holding up the biggest butt log in history.", ">\n\nRandy Marsh was here", ">\n\nI wonder how many Bonos that statue weighs 🤔", ">\n\nCourics! (I know what I'm talking about, im from zurich)", ">\n\nDoes Bono want the bitty?", ">\n\nEasy, Bono, that hurts the bitty!\nBono: BIT-TY!!", ">\n\nI’ll be honest it isn’t my taste, the MLK granite head in DC is much better.", ">\n\nThe head that is almost his whole body?", ">\n\n\"excuse me, sir. you're sitting on my body, which is also my face\"", ">\n\nIs butt legs?", ">\n\nButt is definitely legs.", ">\n\nIt's like a five-dimensional creature eating itself.\n\nEmbrace Boston, a nonprofit organization that works toward racial and economic justice and is a part of the Boston Foundation, helped provide resources and $10.5 million in funds, including a maintenance fund, for “The Embrace” and the Freedom Plaza.", ">\n\nDear god, think how far 10 mil could go toward education or helping homeless people or providing services to the addicted. This makes me pretty sick. It's both ugly and incomprehensible. Even a stick figure lets you know what it is.", ">\n\nThis. I understand the need to memorialize but it seems insensitive to sink millions into remembering the dead when that money could be used to help the living. If they are important then we should make sure to teach their history to younger generations, not build a statue many will never see. Malcolm Gadwell did a great episode these kind of situations and the dark reality of how those funds could be better implemented", ">\n\nI don’t necessarily disagree, but couldn’t we make this same argument for every dollar spent on arts or decoration or even personal luxuries?", ">\n\nIt's the classic slippery slope situation. Again, I do not do this argument as much justice as Malcolm Gladwell does in his podcast episode but it's less about expenses and more about extreme expenses like what this statue cost. His example is of the 9/11 memorial and the cost and extreme disruption it caused NYC and the hard question of its true worth; it's an extremely interesting conversation and I encourage people to give it a listen. \nArt will also always be tricky because of the influx of wealthy people who use it as a tool for tax write-offs and consolidating wealth. It's tricky, but I'm just curious to know more. Who donated the money for this statue, why did they donate, did they know this was were the money was going towards, and so on. I'd rather know how these decisions came about rather than just be mad at the consequences; without that insight the same mistakes will keep getting made.", ">\n\nI don't think it's necessarily a slippery slope, I'm just asking us to apply the principle consistently. Any dollar spent on luxury or decoration could instead be spent providing necessities to people who lack them, and if it's immoral to spend $10 million on some humungous arm statue, isn't it also immoral to spend $10,000 on a more modest piece of public art?\nThis is an old response to (or component of) utilitarianism: something like, can we really justify buying new clothes or going on vacations or even spending an extra few bucks on an expensive coffee drink when that money could be feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, providing life-saving medical care, etc.\nAnd I'm not totally sure how to square this. Intuitively, it seems kind of wrong to say we ought to eschew all luxury -- that just about anything we do beyond the satisfaction of our needs is wrong as long as there are people whose needs aren't met. A lot of the texture of life comes from little excesses here and there, and any normative ethical theory that demands us to give up all but the barest comforts just feels wrong (or at the very least, it seems too demanding to really be of much practical use). But at the same time, if we believe an act is good inasmuch as it maximizes happiness or reduces suffering, it does seem to follow that just about any leisure or luxury we engage in is immoral (unless you genuinely think there's more utility in, say, chugging a latte than in providing a malaria shot to some kid in rural Nigeria -- or more utility in sitting at home watching Netflix instead of, say, manning a soup kitchen). \nI guess, like you said, there's still the issue of scale. Spending $1.5 billion on the 9/11 memorial piece is more wrong than going out for a fancy dinner (or commissioning a less extravagant piece), in the same sense that stealing your friend's car is worse than stealing a french fry off his plate.", ">\n\nAt the same time, art is an easy distraction when it comes time to criticize wasteful spending. \nPlenty more is wasted on projects that achieve far less (which is saying something) due to corruption, inefficiency, lack of oversight, etc. \nHow much is lost as a result of a financial system fluctuating for seemingly no reason on any given day? How much has been spent to support these institutions? How much of the problems we're concerned with were created as a direct result of these institutions and the lack of adequate regulation?\nI'm not saying your points aren't valid, nor that someone who's struggling in these communities shouldn't feel pissed off when they see this statue, but just that possibly as a result of art being what it is, it's easy to make it a symbol in a way that draws more attention than arguably far more relevant issues.", ">\n\nI want to be clear, I'm not coming out against public art (and frankly, I actually appreciate this humungous arm sculpture). I guess more than anything, I'm just playing devil's advocate or talking through some challenges I have with my own normative ethical framework. As much as I value beautiful things, it seems wrong to install a big, expensive, fuck-off statue when people might be living in tents on the same street. But at the same time, it feels wrong to say indulging in aesthetics is immoral as long as there's a single person who's not getting enough to eat. \nI agree though, I think there's a lot more waste in commerce than in art, and we don't really account for that waste because it's less visible and it's taking place in a sphere that's meant to be productive.", ">\n\nY’all really made a monument to MLK where his head is missing?", ">\n\nand based on a picture of him hugging his wife who he routinely cheated on. Everything this statue highlights and ignores is weird.", ">\n\nAnd, to add that last little bit of insult to injury, it doesn't even get the pose right from the picture.", ">\n\nIt makes more sense now that I see the photo that inspired it, but it's still odd looking and too large. It dominates the space.", ">\n\nYou really like those fighters, don't you?", ">\n\nI mean if you’re talking about dominating space you really can’t avoid discussing the tactical advantages that the F-104 Starfighter brings to the table", ">\n\nAt quick glance it looks like hands covering an asshole (excuse my language)", ">\n\nIt's Reddit, you're excused.", ">\n\n\"MLK monument has Boston up in arms\"\ni mean, c'mon - it was right there", ">\n\nDid they have like a mock prototype before building this thing? No one sat there and said, “maybe this doesn’t look all that great.”", ">\n\nMore than likely they did, and I guarantee all the mock-ups showed one specific angle where the art works. No one in charged thought to ask how it would look at different angles or just assumed it would make sense once you take in the whole thing. It’s also way easier to make a pitch and sway concerns to a small limited audience over the larger general public. \nAlso, I’d be money the mock-ups looked slightly different than the end result. Things change when reality strikes. Material cost change so things get scaled back, maybe there were other elements like lights or accent pieces to direct viewer’s eyes but got cut due to budget reasons. \nMore than likely though, the people in charge had no idea what “good” art is and just wanted something. There was no oversight, no real check ins, and anytime the artist said something it probably went in one ear and out the other. “Sounds good, just get it done”.", ">\n\nThe backstory to this and the artist, was on CBS Sunday Morning back in December. It should be on You Tube if anyone is interested. The aluminum cast that the assistants were polishing before it was dipped in bronze, looked a lot better; eventhough it reminded you of the \"Bean\" in Grant Park in Chicago. The final version doesn't even have the reflective finish the entry picture said it would.\nThe main problem for me, is that it's based off a picture of Dr. King that vast majority of people haven't seen, so wouldn't immediate associate with him. I think the artist was thinking more about his personal feelings, than how the general publoc could relate.\nThat being said, the last two finalists on that list were BEAUTIFUL and interactive. I just can't understand what the selection committee was thinking.", ">\n\nGive me $10mil and I’ll do better", ">\n\nI'll do the job for half that", ">\n\nI'll do it for a third of 10mil. But, I'll need half that up front for materials, other half on completion. I'll get started just as soon as that first check clears. Trust me!", ">\n\nJust buy 3 small squadron of F-104 Starfighters\nEveryone will be happier\nEasier to fight racism with a fighter jet", ">\n\nHuh... can't argue with that logic!", ">\n\nA complete miss in it’s conception, execution and intention.", ">\n\nbut a very successful reach-around, from certain angles.", ">\n\nOMG a reach-around is exactly what I thought the sculpture looked like, lol", ">\n\nWithout reading headlines, my first reaction to this monument was 'why did somebody make a sculpture of someone stuffing their head up their own ass'\nEdit: typo", ">\n\nOmg, I am crying-laughing right now!", ">\n\nMy throat's hurting from laughing so hard.", ">\n\nIt's honestly pretty bad. If nobody knows what they are looking at then the statue is a bust.", ">\n\nCan't be a bust, there's no head anywhere on it.", ">\n\nOh from some of the assessments of it I've seen on Twitter there's definitely head.", ">\n\nWe could do something like police reform or stop racist gerrymandering but we get this instead. I'm sure MLK's dream was a weird statue of his and his wife's arms.", ">\n\nBoston is one of the most redlined cities in America. Our black communities could REALLY use that $10m.", ">\n\nFuck, they could have built a better statue and still had $9mil left for good causes.", ">\n\nThe first photo of it I saw was from single angle, and good chunk of it was hidden by the fence, you could only see the top part of it. So, I was like, OK, somebody figured out particular angle to make it look bad in order to mock it.\nBut now that it is fully visible and I saw many more photos of it from different angles... Yeah, I don't think the concept really worked well in this particular case. This is where artist should have been like \"OK, this doesn't really work all that well, I should either put more work into it, or try some different idea.\"", ">\n\nIt works from specific angles, but if your statur is in an open space it should look great from most angles.", ">\n\nIt should have been a plaque with a graven image of Martin Luther King with the date every time foundations are able to donate the money that they instead would have spent on bad art. They could have spent that money with a bunch of different charitable foundations and had enough left over to employ somebody for the next 10 years to make sure that that donation money was spent correctly.", ">\n\nSo far, we're up to a giant penis, 69ing, and holding a giant clump of shit. What other interpretations of this...unique specimen are out there?", ">\n\nYou forgot cunnilingus.", ">\n\nMy very first thought when I saw it on twitter. It only looks good from one specific angle but its so huge that if your were to see it in person you're looking at the many more ugly angles. Everything about it is just awful if it weren't dedicated to MLK I would probably consider spray painting something on it to at least make it less ugly." ]

[ "Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”\n“If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.\n\nThe first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful.", ">\n\nThe first view I saw of it looked like two arms holding up the biggest butt log in history.", ">\n\nRandy Marsh was here", ">\n\nI wonder how many Bonos that statue weighs 🤔", ">\n\nCourics! (I know what I'm talking about, im from zurich)", ">\n\nDoes Bono want the bitty?", ">\n\nEasy, Bono, that hurts the bitty!\nBono: BIT-TY!!", ">\n\nI’ll be honest it isn’t my taste, the MLK granite head in DC is much better.", ">\n\nThe head that is almost his whole body?", ">\n\n\"excuse me, sir. you're sitting on my body, which is also my face\"", ">\n\nIs butt legs?", ">\n\nButt is definitely legs.", ">\n\nIt's like a five-dimensional creature eating itself.\n\nEmbrace Boston, a nonprofit organization that works toward racial and economic justice and is a part of the Boston Foundation, helped provide resources and $10.5 million in funds, including a maintenance fund, for “The Embrace” and the Freedom Plaza.", ">\n\nDear god, think how far 10 mil could go toward education or helping homeless people or providing services to the addicted. This makes me pretty sick. It's both ugly and incomprehensible. Even a stick figure lets you know what it is.", ">\n\nThis. I understand the need to memorialize but it seems insensitive to sink millions into remembering the dead when that money could be used to help the living. If they are important then we should make sure to teach their history to younger generations, not build a statue many will never see. Malcolm Gadwell did a great episode these kind of situations and the dark reality of how those funds could be better implemented", ">\n\nI don’t necessarily disagree, but couldn’t we make this same argument for every dollar spent on arts or decoration or even personal luxuries?", ">\n\nIt's the classic slippery slope situation. Again, I do not do this argument as much justice as Malcolm Gladwell does in his podcast episode but it's less about expenses and more about extreme expenses like what this statue cost. His example is of the 9/11 memorial and the cost and extreme disruption it caused NYC and the hard question of its true worth; it's an extremely interesting conversation and I encourage people to give it a listen. \nArt will also always be tricky because of the influx of wealthy people who use it as a tool for tax write-offs and consolidating wealth. It's tricky, but I'm just curious to know more. Who donated the money for this statue, why did they donate, did they know this was were the money was going towards, and so on. I'd rather know how these decisions came about rather than just be mad at the consequences; without that insight the same mistakes will keep getting made.", ">\n\nI don't think it's necessarily a slippery slope, I'm just asking us to apply the principle consistently. Any dollar spent on luxury or decoration could instead be spent providing necessities to people who lack them, and if it's immoral to spend $10 million on some humungous arm statue, isn't it also immoral to spend $10,000 on a more modest piece of public art?\nThis is an old response to (or component of) utilitarianism: something like, can we really justify buying new clothes or going on vacations or even spending an extra few bucks on an expensive coffee drink when that money could be feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, providing life-saving medical care, etc.\nAnd I'm not totally sure how to square this. Intuitively, it seems kind of wrong to say we ought to eschew all luxury -- that just about anything we do beyond the satisfaction of our needs is wrong as long as there are people whose needs aren't met. A lot of the texture of life comes from little excesses here and there, and any normative ethical theory that demands us to give up all but the barest comforts just feels wrong (or at the very least, it seems too demanding to really be of much practical use). But at the same time, if we believe an act is good inasmuch as it maximizes happiness or reduces suffering, it does seem to follow that just about any leisure or luxury we engage in is immoral (unless you genuinely think there's more utility in, say, chugging a latte than in providing a malaria shot to some kid in rural Nigeria -- or more utility in sitting at home watching Netflix instead of, say, manning a soup kitchen). \nI guess, like you said, there's still the issue of scale. Spending $1.5 billion on the 9/11 memorial piece is more wrong than going out for a fancy dinner (or commissioning a less extravagant piece), in the same sense that stealing your friend's car is worse than stealing a french fry off his plate.", ">\n\nAt the same time, art is an easy distraction when it comes time to criticize wasteful spending. \nPlenty more is wasted on projects that achieve far less (which is saying something) due to corruption, inefficiency, lack of oversight, etc. \nHow much is lost as a result of a financial system fluctuating for seemingly no reason on any given day? How much has been spent to support these institutions? How much of the problems we're concerned with were created as a direct result of these institutions and the lack of adequate regulation?\nI'm not saying your points aren't valid, nor that someone who's struggling in these communities shouldn't feel pissed off when they see this statue, but just that possibly as a result of art being what it is, it's easy to make it a symbol in a way that draws more attention than arguably far more relevant issues.", ">\n\nI want to be clear, I'm not coming out against public art (and frankly, I actually appreciate this humungous arm sculpture). I guess more than anything, I'm just playing devil's advocate or talking through some challenges I have with my own normative ethical framework. As much as I value beautiful things, it seems wrong to install a big, expensive, fuck-off statue when people might be living in tents on the same street. But at the same time, it feels wrong to say indulging in aesthetics is immoral as long as there's a single person who's not getting enough to eat. \nI agree though, I think there's a lot more waste in commerce than in art, and we don't really account for that waste because it's less visible and it's taking place in a sphere that's meant to be productive.", ">\n\nY’all really made a monument to MLK where his head is missing?", ">\n\nand based on a picture of him hugging his wife who he routinely cheated on. Everything this statue highlights and ignores is weird.", ">\n\nAnd, to add that last little bit of insult to injury, it doesn't even get the pose right from the picture.", ">\n\nIt makes more sense now that I see the photo that inspired it, but it's still odd looking and too large. It dominates the space.", ">\n\nYou really like those fighters, don't you?", ">\n\nI mean if you’re talking about dominating space you really can’t avoid discussing the tactical advantages that the F-104 Starfighter brings to the table", ">\n\nAt quick glance it looks like hands covering an asshole (excuse my language)", ">\n\nIt's Reddit, you're excused.", ">\n\n\"MLK monument has Boston up in arms\"\ni mean, c'mon - it was right there", ">\n\nDid they have like a mock prototype before building this thing? No one sat there and said, “maybe this doesn’t look all that great.”", ">\n\nMore than likely they did, and I guarantee all the mock-ups showed one specific angle where the art works. No one in charged thought to ask how it would look at different angles or just assumed it would make sense once you take in the whole thing. It’s also way easier to make a pitch and sway concerns to a small limited audience over the larger general public. \nAlso, I’d be money the mock-ups looked slightly different than the end result. Things change when reality strikes. Material cost change so things get scaled back, maybe there were other elements like lights or accent pieces to direct viewer’s eyes but got cut due to budget reasons. \nMore than likely though, the people in charge had no idea what “good” art is and just wanted something. There was no oversight, no real check ins, and anytime the artist said something it probably went in one ear and out the other. “Sounds good, just get it done”.", ">\n\nThe backstory to this and the artist, was on CBS Sunday Morning back in December. It should be on You Tube if anyone is interested. The aluminum cast that the assistants were polishing before it was dipped in bronze, looked a lot better; eventhough it reminded you of the \"Bean\" in Grant Park in Chicago. The final version doesn't even have the reflective finish the entry picture said it would.\nThe main problem for me, is that it's based off a picture of Dr. King that vast majority of people haven't seen, so wouldn't immediate associate with him. I think the artist was thinking more about his personal feelings, than how the general publoc could relate.\nThat being said, the last two finalists on that list were BEAUTIFUL and interactive. I just can't understand what the selection committee was thinking.", ">\n\nGive me $10mil and I’ll do better", ">\n\nI'll do the job for half that", ">\n\nI'll do it for a third of 10mil. But, I'll need half that up front for materials, other half on completion. I'll get started just as soon as that first check clears. Trust me!", ">\n\nJust buy 3 small squadron of F-104 Starfighters\nEveryone will be happier\nEasier to fight racism with a fighter jet", ">\n\nHuh... can't argue with that logic!", ">\n\nA complete miss in it’s conception, execution and intention.", ">\n\nbut a very successful reach-around, from certain angles.", ">\n\nOMG a reach-around is exactly what I thought the sculpture looked like, lol", ">\n\nWithout reading headlines, my first reaction to this monument was 'why did somebody make a sculpture of someone stuffing their head up their own ass'\nEdit: typo", ">\n\nOmg, I am crying-laughing right now!", ">\n\nMy throat's hurting from laughing so hard.", ">\n\nIt's honestly pretty bad. If nobody knows what they are looking at then the statue is a bust.", ">\n\nCan't be a bust, there's no head anywhere on it.", ">\n\nOh from some of the assessments of it I've seen on Twitter there's definitely head.", ">\n\nWe could do something like police reform or stop racist gerrymandering but we get this instead. I'm sure MLK's dream was a weird statue of his and his wife's arms.", ">\n\nBoston is one of the most redlined cities in America. Our black communities could REALLY use that $10m.", ">\n\nFuck, they could have built a better statue and still had $9mil left for good causes.", ">\n\nThe first photo of it I saw was from single angle, and good chunk of it was hidden by the fence, you could only see the top part of it. So, I was like, OK, somebody figured out particular angle to make it look bad in order to mock it.\nBut now that it is fully visible and I saw many more photos of it from different angles... Yeah, I don't think the concept really worked well in this particular case. This is where artist should have been like \"OK, this doesn't really work all that well, I should either put more work into it, or try some different idea.\"", ">\n\nIt works from specific angles, but if your statur is in an open space it should look great from most angles.", ">\n\nIt should have been a plaque with a graven image of Martin Luther King with the date every time foundations are able to donate the money that they instead would have spent on bad art. They could have spent that money with a bunch of different charitable foundations and had enough left over to employ somebody for the next 10 years to make sure that that donation money was spent correctly.", ">\n\nSo far, we're up to a giant penis, 69ing, and holding a giant clump of shit. What other interpretations of this...unique specimen are out there?", ">\n\nYou forgot cunnilingus.", ">\n\nMy very first thought when I saw it on twitter. It only looks good from one specific angle but its so huge that if your were to see it in person you're looking at the many more ugly angles. Everything about it is just awful if it weren't dedicated to MLK I would probably consider spray painting something on it to at least make it less ugly.", ">\n\nIdk why they didn't just make it their whole bodies. Like a normal statue of them hugging." ]

[ "Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”\n“If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.\n\nThe first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful.", ">\n\nThe first view I saw of it looked like two arms holding up the biggest butt log in history.", ">\n\nRandy Marsh was here", ">\n\nI wonder how many Bonos that statue weighs 🤔", ">\n\nCourics! (I know what I'm talking about, im from zurich)", ">\n\nDoes Bono want the bitty?", ">\n\nEasy, Bono, that hurts the bitty!\nBono: BIT-TY!!", ">\n\nI’ll be honest it isn’t my taste, the MLK granite head in DC is much better.", ">\n\nThe head that is almost his whole body?", ">\n\n\"excuse me, sir. you're sitting on my body, which is also my face\"", ">\n\nIs butt legs?", ">\n\nButt is definitely legs.", ">\n\nIt's like a five-dimensional creature eating itself.\n\nEmbrace Boston, a nonprofit organization that works toward racial and economic justice and is a part of the Boston Foundation, helped provide resources and $10.5 million in funds, including a maintenance fund, for “The Embrace” and the Freedom Plaza.", ">\n\nDear god, think how far 10 mil could go toward education or helping homeless people or providing services to the addicted. This makes me pretty sick. It's both ugly and incomprehensible. Even a stick figure lets you know what it is.", ">\n\nThis. I understand the need to memorialize but it seems insensitive to sink millions into remembering the dead when that money could be used to help the living. If they are important then we should make sure to teach their history to younger generations, not build a statue many will never see. Malcolm Gadwell did a great episode these kind of situations and the dark reality of how those funds could be better implemented", ">\n\nI don’t necessarily disagree, but couldn’t we make this same argument for every dollar spent on arts or decoration or even personal luxuries?", ">\n\nIt's the classic slippery slope situation. Again, I do not do this argument as much justice as Malcolm Gladwell does in his podcast episode but it's less about expenses and more about extreme expenses like what this statue cost. His example is of the 9/11 memorial and the cost and extreme disruption it caused NYC and the hard question of its true worth; it's an extremely interesting conversation and I encourage people to give it a listen. \nArt will also always be tricky because of the influx of wealthy people who use it as a tool for tax write-offs and consolidating wealth. It's tricky, but I'm just curious to know more. Who donated the money for this statue, why did they donate, did they know this was were the money was going towards, and so on. I'd rather know how these decisions came about rather than just be mad at the consequences; without that insight the same mistakes will keep getting made.", ">\n\nI don't think it's necessarily a slippery slope, I'm just asking us to apply the principle consistently. Any dollar spent on luxury or decoration could instead be spent providing necessities to people who lack them, and if it's immoral to spend $10 million on some humungous arm statue, isn't it also immoral to spend $10,000 on a more modest piece of public art?\nThis is an old response to (or component of) utilitarianism: something like, can we really justify buying new clothes or going on vacations or even spending an extra few bucks on an expensive coffee drink when that money could be feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, providing life-saving medical care, etc.\nAnd I'm not totally sure how to square this. Intuitively, it seems kind of wrong to say we ought to eschew all luxury -- that just about anything we do beyond the satisfaction of our needs is wrong as long as there are people whose needs aren't met. A lot of the texture of life comes from little excesses here and there, and any normative ethical theory that demands us to give up all but the barest comforts just feels wrong (or at the very least, it seems too demanding to really be of much practical use). But at the same time, if we believe an act is good inasmuch as it maximizes happiness or reduces suffering, it does seem to follow that just about any leisure or luxury we engage in is immoral (unless you genuinely think there's more utility in, say, chugging a latte than in providing a malaria shot to some kid in rural Nigeria -- or more utility in sitting at home watching Netflix instead of, say, manning a soup kitchen). \nI guess, like you said, there's still the issue of scale. Spending $1.5 billion on the 9/11 memorial piece is more wrong than going out for a fancy dinner (or commissioning a less extravagant piece), in the same sense that stealing your friend's car is worse than stealing a french fry off his plate.", ">\n\nAt the same time, art is an easy distraction when it comes time to criticize wasteful spending. \nPlenty more is wasted on projects that achieve far less (which is saying something) due to corruption, inefficiency, lack of oversight, etc. \nHow much is lost as a result of a financial system fluctuating for seemingly no reason on any given day? How much has been spent to support these institutions? How much of the problems we're concerned with were created as a direct result of these institutions and the lack of adequate regulation?\nI'm not saying your points aren't valid, nor that someone who's struggling in these communities shouldn't feel pissed off when they see this statue, but just that possibly as a result of art being what it is, it's easy to make it a symbol in a way that draws more attention than arguably far more relevant issues.", ">\n\nI want to be clear, I'm not coming out against public art (and frankly, I actually appreciate this humungous arm sculpture). I guess more than anything, I'm just playing devil's advocate or talking through some challenges I have with my own normative ethical framework. As much as I value beautiful things, it seems wrong to install a big, expensive, fuck-off statue when people might be living in tents on the same street. But at the same time, it feels wrong to say indulging in aesthetics is immoral as long as there's a single person who's not getting enough to eat. \nI agree though, I think there's a lot more waste in commerce than in art, and we don't really account for that waste because it's less visible and it's taking place in a sphere that's meant to be productive.", ">\n\nY’all really made a monument to MLK where his head is missing?", ">\n\nand based on a picture of him hugging his wife who he routinely cheated on. Everything this statue highlights and ignores is weird.", ">\n\nAnd, to add that last little bit of insult to injury, it doesn't even get the pose right from the picture.", ">\n\nIt makes more sense now that I see the photo that inspired it, but it's still odd looking and too large. It dominates the space.", ">\n\nYou really like those fighters, don't you?", ">\n\nI mean if you’re talking about dominating space you really can’t avoid discussing the tactical advantages that the F-104 Starfighter brings to the table", ">\n\nAt quick glance it looks like hands covering an asshole (excuse my language)", ">\n\nIt's Reddit, you're excused.", ">\n\n\"MLK monument has Boston up in arms\"\ni mean, c'mon - it was right there", ">\n\nDid they have like a mock prototype before building this thing? No one sat there and said, “maybe this doesn’t look all that great.”", ">\n\nMore than likely they did, and I guarantee all the mock-ups showed one specific angle where the art works. No one in charged thought to ask how it would look at different angles or just assumed it would make sense once you take in the whole thing. It’s also way easier to make a pitch and sway concerns to a small limited audience over the larger general public. \nAlso, I’d be money the mock-ups looked slightly different than the end result. Things change when reality strikes. Material cost change so things get scaled back, maybe there were other elements like lights or accent pieces to direct viewer’s eyes but got cut due to budget reasons. \nMore than likely though, the people in charge had no idea what “good” art is and just wanted something. There was no oversight, no real check ins, and anytime the artist said something it probably went in one ear and out the other. “Sounds good, just get it done”.", ">\n\nThe backstory to this and the artist, was on CBS Sunday Morning back in December. It should be on You Tube if anyone is interested. The aluminum cast that the assistants were polishing before it was dipped in bronze, looked a lot better; eventhough it reminded you of the \"Bean\" in Grant Park in Chicago. The final version doesn't even have the reflective finish the entry picture said it would.\nThe main problem for me, is that it's based off a picture of Dr. King that vast majority of people haven't seen, so wouldn't immediate associate with him. I think the artist was thinking more about his personal feelings, than how the general publoc could relate.\nThat being said, the last two finalists on that list were BEAUTIFUL and interactive. I just can't understand what the selection committee was thinking.", ">\n\nGive me $10mil and I’ll do better", ">\n\nI'll do the job for half that", ">\n\nI'll do it for a third of 10mil. But, I'll need half that up front for materials, other half on completion. I'll get started just as soon as that first check clears. Trust me!", ">\n\nJust buy 3 small squadron of F-104 Starfighters\nEveryone will be happier\nEasier to fight racism with a fighter jet", ">\n\nHuh... can't argue with that logic!", ">\n\nA complete miss in it’s conception, execution and intention.", ">\n\nbut a very successful reach-around, from certain angles.", ">\n\nOMG a reach-around is exactly what I thought the sculpture looked like, lol", ">\n\nWithout reading headlines, my first reaction to this monument was 'why did somebody make a sculpture of someone stuffing their head up their own ass'\nEdit: typo", ">\n\nOmg, I am crying-laughing right now!", ">\n\nMy throat's hurting from laughing so hard.", ">\n\nIt's honestly pretty bad. If nobody knows what they are looking at then the statue is a bust.", ">\n\nCan't be a bust, there's no head anywhere on it.", ">\n\nOh from some of the assessments of it I've seen on Twitter there's definitely head.", ">\n\nWe could do something like police reform or stop racist gerrymandering but we get this instead. I'm sure MLK's dream was a weird statue of his and his wife's arms.", ">\n\nBoston is one of the most redlined cities in America. Our black communities could REALLY use that $10m.", ">\n\nFuck, they could have built a better statue and still had $9mil left for good causes.", ">\n\nThe first photo of it I saw was from single angle, and good chunk of it was hidden by the fence, you could only see the top part of it. So, I was like, OK, somebody figured out particular angle to make it look bad in order to mock it.\nBut now that it is fully visible and I saw many more photos of it from different angles... Yeah, I don't think the concept really worked well in this particular case. This is where artist should have been like \"OK, this doesn't really work all that well, I should either put more work into it, or try some different idea.\"", ">\n\nIt works from specific angles, but if your statur is in an open space it should look great from most angles.", ">\n\nIt should have been a plaque with a graven image of Martin Luther King with the date every time foundations are able to donate the money that they instead would have spent on bad art. They could have spent that money with a bunch of different charitable foundations and had enough left over to employ somebody for the next 10 years to make sure that that donation money was spent correctly.", ">\n\nSo far, we're up to a giant penis, 69ing, and holding a giant clump of shit. What other interpretations of this...unique specimen are out there?", ">\n\nYou forgot cunnilingus.", ">\n\nMy very first thought when I saw it on twitter. It only looks good from one specific angle but its so huge that if your were to see it in person you're looking at the many more ugly angles. Everything about it is just awful if it weren't dedicated to MLK I would probably consider spray painting something on it to at least make it less ugly.", ">\n\nIdk why they didn't just make it their whole bodies. Like a normal statue of them hugging.", ">\n\nAbstractions can be beautiful. The human mind is great at connecting dots.\nBut here clearly there was no feedback process." ]

[ "Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”\n“If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.\n\nThe first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful.", ">\n\nThe first view I saw of it looked like two arms holding up the biggest butt log in history.", ">\n\nRandy Marsh was here", ">\n\nI wonder how many Bonos that statue weighs 🤔", ">\n\nCourics! (I know what I'm talking about, im from zurich)", ">\n\nDoes Bono want the bitty?", ">\n\nEasy, Bono, that hurts the bitty!\nBono: BIT-TY!!", ">\n\nI’ll be honest it isn’t my taste, the MLK granite head in DC is much better.", ">\n\nThe head that is almost his whole body?", ">\n\n\"excuse me, sir. you're sitting on my body, which is also my face\"", ">\n\nIs butt legs?", ">\n\nButt is definitely legs.", ">\n\nIt's like a five-dimensional creature eating itself.\n\nEmbrace Boston, a nonprofit organization that works toward racial and economic justice and is a part of the Boston Foundation, helped provide resources and $10.5 million in funds, including a maintenance fund, for “The Embrace” and the Freedom Plaza.", ">\n\nDear god, think how far 10 mil could go toward education or helping homeless people or providing services to the addicted. This makes me pretty sick. It's both ugly and incomprehensible. Even a stick figure lets you know what it is.", ">\n\nThis. I understand the need to memorialize but it seems insensitive to sink millions into remembering the dead when that money could be used to help the living. If they are important then we should make sure to teach their history to younger generations, not build a statue many will never see. Malcolm Gadwell did a great episode these kind of situations and the dark reality of how those funds could be better implemented", ">\n\nI don’t necessarily disagree, but couldn’t we make this same argument for every dollar spent on arts or decoration or even personal luxuries?", ">\n\nIt's the classic slippery slope situation. Again, I do not do this argument as much justice as Malcolm Gladwell does in his podcast episode but it's less about expenses and more about extreme expenses like what this statue cost. His example is of the 9/11 memorial and the cost and extreme disruption it caused NYC and the hard question of its true worth; it's an extremely interesting conversation and I encourage people to give it a listen. \nArt will also always be tricky because of the influx of wealthy people who use it as a tool for tax write-offs and consolidating wealth. It's tricky, but I'm just curious to know more. Who donated the money for this statue, why did they donate, did they know this was were the money was going towards, and so on. I'd rather know how these decisions came about rather than just be mad at the consequences; without that insight the same mistakes will keep getting made.", ">\n\nI don't think it's necessarily a slippery slope, I'm just asking us to apply the principle consistently. Any dollar spent on luxury or decoration could instead be spent providing necessities to people who lack them, and if it's immoral to spend $10 million on some humungous arm statue, isn't it also immoral to spend $10,000 on a more modest piece of public art?\nThis is an old response to (or component of) utilitarianism: something like, can we really justify buying new clothes or going on vacations or even spending an extra few bucks on an expensive coffee drink when that money could be feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, providing life-saving medical care, etc.\nAnd I'm not totally sure how to square this. Intuitively, it seems kind of wrong to say we ought to eschew all luxury -- that just about anything we do beyond the satisfaction of our needs is wrong as long as there are people whose needs aren't met. A lot of the texture of life comes from little excesses here and there, and any normative ethical theory that demands us to give up all but the barest comforts just feels wrong (or at the very least, it seems too demanding to really be of much practical use). But at the same time, if we believe an act is good inasmuch as it maximizes happiness or reduces suffering, it does seem to follow that just about any leisure or luxury we engage in is immoral (unless you genuinely think there's more utility in, say, chugging a latte than in providing a malaria shot to some kid in rural Nigeria -- or more utility in sitting at home watching Netflix instead of, say, manning a soup kitchen). \nI guess, like you said, there's still the issue of scale. Spending $1.5 billion on the 9/11 memorial piece is more wrong than going out for a fancy dinner (or commissioning a less extravagant piece), in the same sense that stealing your friend's car is worse than stealing a french fry off his plate.", ">\n\nAt the same time, art is an easy distraction when it comes time to criticize wasteful spending. \nPlenty more is wasted on projects that achieve far less (which is saying something) due to corruption, inefficiency, lack of oversight, etc. \nHow much is lost as a result of a financial system fluctuating for seemingly no reason on any given day? How much has been spent to support these institutions? How much of the problems we're concerned with were created as a direct result of these institutions and the lack of adequate regulation?\nI'm not saying your points aren't valid, nor that someone who's struggling in these communities shouldn't feel pissed off when they see this statue, but just that possibly as a result of art being what it is, it's easy to make it a symbol in a way that draws more attention than arguably far more relevant issues.", ">\n\nI want to be clear, I'm not coming out against public art (and frankly, I actually appreciate this humungous arm sculpture). I guess more than anything, I'm just playing devil's advocate or talking through some challenges I have with my own normative ethical framework. As much as I value beautiful things, it seems wrong to install a big, expensive, fuck-off statue when people might be living in tents on the same street. But at the same time, it feels wrong to say indulging in aesthetics is immoral as long as there's a single person who's not getting enough to eat. \nI agree though, I think there's a lot more waste in commerce than in art, and we don't really account for that waste because it's less visible and it's taking place in a sphere that's meant to be productive.", ">\n\nY’all really made a monument to MLK where his head is missing?", ">\n\nand based on a picture of him hugging his wife who he routinely cheated on. Everything this statue highlights and ignores is weird.", ">\n\nAnd, to add that last little bit of insult to injury, it doesn't even get the pose right from the picture.", ">\n\nIt makes more sense now that I see the photo that inspired it, but it's still odd looking and too large. It dominates the space.", ">\n\nYou really like those fighters, don't you?", ">\n\nI mean if you’re talking about dominating space you really can’t avoid discussing the tactical advantages that the F-104 Starfighter brings to the table", ">\n\nAt quick glance it looks like hands covering an asshole (excuse my language)", ">\n\nIt's Reddit, you're excused.", ">\n\n\"MLK monument has Boston up in arms\"\ni mean, c'mon - it was right there", ">\n\nDid they have like a mock prototype before building this thing? No one sat there and said, “maybe this doesn’t look all that great.”", ">\n\nMore than likely they did, and I guarantee all the mock-ups showed one specific angle where the art works. No one in charged thought to ask how it would look at different angles or just assumed it would make sense once you take in the whole thing. It’s also way easier to make a pitch and sway concerns to a small limited audience over the larger general public. \nAlso, I’d be money the mock-ups looked slightly different than the end result. Things change when reality strikes. Material cost change so things get scaled back, maybe there were other elements like lights or accent pieces to direct viewer’s eyes but got cut due to budget reasons. \nMore than likely though, the people in charge had no idea what “good” art is and just wanted something. There was no oversight, no real check ins, and anytime the artist said something it probably went in one ear and out the other. “Sounds good, just get it done”.", ">\n\nThe backstory to this and the artist, was on CBS Sunday Morning back in December. It should be on You Tube if anyone is interested. The aluminum cast that the assistants were polishing before it was dipped in bronze, looked a lot better; eventhough it reminded you of the \"Bean\" in Grant Park in Chicago. The final version doesn't even have the reflective finish the entry picture said it would.\nThe main problem for me, is that it's based off a picture of Dr. King that vast majority of people haven't seen, so wouldn't immediate associate with him. I think the artist was thinking more about his personal feelings, than how the general publoc could relate.\nThat being said, the last two finalists on that list were BEAUTIFUL and interactive. I just can't understand what the selection committee was thinking.", ">\n\nGive me $10mil and I’ll do better", ">\n\nI'll do the job for half that", ">\n\nI'll do it for a third of 10mil. But, I'll need half that up front for materials, other half on completion. I'll get started just as soon as that first check clears. Trust me!", ">\n\nJust buy 3 small squadron of F-104 Starfighters\nEveryone will be happier\nEasier to fight racism with a fighter jet", ">\n\nHuh... can't argue with that logic!", ">\n\nA complete miss in it’s conception, execution and intention.", ">\n\nbut a very successful reach-around, from certain angles.", ">\n\nOMG a reach-around is exactly what I thought the sculpture looked like, lol", ">\n\nWithout reading headlines, my first reaction to this monument was 'why did somebody make a sculpture of someone stuffing their head up their own ass'\nEdit: typo", ">\n\nOmg, I am crying-laughing right now!", ">\n\nMy throat's hurting from laughing so hard.", ">\n\nIt's honestly pretty bad. If nobody knows what they are looking at then the statue is a bust.", ">\n\nCan't be a bust, there's no head anywhere on it.", ">\n\nOh from some of the assessments of it I've seen on Twitter there's definitely head.", ">\n\nWe could do something like police reform or stop racist gerrymandering but we get this instead. I'm sure MLK's dream was a weird statue of his and his wife's arms.", ">\n\nBoston is one of the most redlined cities in America. Our black communities could REALLY use that $10m.", ">\n\nFuck, they could have built a better statue and still had $9mil left for good causes.", ">\n\nThe first photo of it I saw was from single angle, and good chunk of it was hidden by the fence, you could only see the top part of it. So, I was like, OK, somebody figured out particular angle to make it look bad in order to mock it.\nBut now that it is fully visible and I saw many more photos of it from different angles... Yeah, I don't think the concept really worked well in this particular case. This is where artist should have been like \"OK, this doesn't really work all that well, I should either put more work into it, or try some different idea.\"", ">\n\nIt works from specific angles, but if your statur is in an open space it should look great from most angles.", ">\n\nIt should have been a plaque with a graven image of Martin Luther King with the date every time foundations are able to donate the money that they instead would have spent on bad art. They could have spent that money with a bunch of different charitable foundations and had enough left over to employ somebody for the next 10 years to make sure that that donation money was spent correctly.", ">\n\nSo far, we're up to a giant penis, 69ing, and holding a giant clump of shit. What other interpretations of this...unique specimen are out there?", ">\n\nYou forgot cunnilingus.", ">\n\nMy very first thought when I saw it on twitter. It only looks good from one specific angle but its so huge that if your were to see it in person you're looking at the many more ugly angles. Everything about it is just awful if it weren't dedicated to MLK I would probably consider spray painting something on it to at least make it less ugly.", ">\n\nIdk why they didn't just make it their whole bodies. Like a normal statue of them hugging.", ">\n\nAbstractions can be beautiful. The human mind is great at connecting dots.\nBut here clearly there was no feedback process.", ">\n\nYeah this piece shows the problem with abstractions too. Sometimes you can remove so many details and leave too many dots unconnected that your audience ends up connecting two of them together in a way you never intended.\nAnd that's how you have penis/poop/cunnilingus statue instead of arms." ]

[ "Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”\n“If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.\n\nThe first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful.", ">\n\nThe first view I saw of it looked like two arms holding up the biggest butt log in history.", ">\n\nRandy Marsh was here", ">\n\nI wonder how many Bonos that statue weighs 🤔", ">\n\nCourics! (I know what I'm talking about, im from zurich)", ">\n\nDoes Bono want the bitty?", ">\n\nEasy, Bono, that hurts the bitty!\nBono: BIT-TY!!", ">\n\nI’ll be honest it isn’t my taste, the MLK granite head in DC is much better.", ">\n\nThe head that is almost his whole body?", ">\n\n\"excuse me, sir. you're sitting on my body, which is also my face\"", ">\n\nIs butt legs?", ">\n\nButt is definitely legs.", ">\n\nIt's like a five-dimensional creature eating itself.\n\nEmbrace Boston, a nonprofit organization that works toward racial and economic justice and is a part of the Boston Foundation, helped provide resources and $10.5 million in funds, including a maintenance fund, for “The Embrace” and the Freedom Plaza.", ">\n\nDear god, think how far 10 mil could go toward education or helping homeless people or providing services to the addicted. This makes me pretty sick. It's both ugly and incomprehensible. Even a stick figure lets you know what it is.", ">\n\nThis. I understand the need to memorialize but it seems insensitive to sink millions into remembering the dead when that money could be used to help the living. If they are important then we should make sure to teach their history to younger generations, not build a statue many will never see. Malcolm Gadwell did a great episode these kind of situations and the dark reality of how those funds could be better implemented", ">\n\nI don’t necessarily disagree, but couldn’t we make this same argument for every dollar spent on arts or decoration or even personal luxuries?", ">\n\nIt's the classic slippery slope situation. Again, I do not do this argument as much justice as Malcolm Gladwell does in his podcast episode but it's less about expenses and more about extreme expenses like what this statue cost. His example is of the 9/11 memorial and the cost and extreme disruption it caused NYC and the hard question of its true worth; it's an extremely interesting conversation and I encourage people to give it a listen. \nArt will also always be tricky because of the influx of wealthy people who use it as a tool for tax write-offs and consolidating wealth. It's tricky, but I'm just curious to know more. Who donated the money for this statue, why did they donate, did they know this was were the money was going towards, and so on. I'd rather know how these decisions came about rather than just be mad at the consequences; without that insight the same mistakes will keep getting made.", ">\n\nI don't think it's necessarily a slippery slope, I'm just asking us to apply the principle consistently. Any dollar spent on luxury or decoration could instead be spent providing necessities to people who lack them, and if it's immoral to spend $10 million on some humungous arm statue, isn't it also immoral to spend $10,000 on a more modest piece of public art?\nThis is an old response to (or component of) utilitarianism: something like, can we really justify buying new clothes or going on vacations or even spending an extra few bucks on an expensive coffee drink when that money could be feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, providing life-saving medical care, etc.\nAnd I'm not totally sure how to square this. Intuitively, it seems kind of wrong to say we ought to eschew all luxury -- that just about anything we do beyond the satisfaction of our needs is wrong as long as there are people whose needs aren't met. A lot of the texture of life comes from little excesses here and there, and any normative ethical theory that demands us to give up all but the barest comforts just feels wrong (or at the very least, it seems too demanding to really be of much practical use). But at the same time, if we believe an act is good inasmuch as it maximizes happiness or reduces suffering, it does seem to follow that just about any leisure or luxury we engage in is immoral (unless you genuinely think there's more utility in, say, chugging a latte than in providing a malaria shot to some kid in rural Nigeria -- or more utility in sitting at home watching Netflix instead of, say, manning a soup kitchen). \nI guess, like you said, there's still the issue of scale. Spending $1.5 billion on the 9/11 memorial piece is more wrong than going out for a fancy dinner (or commissioning a less extravagant piece), in the same sense that stealing your friend's car is worse than stealing a french fry off his plate.", ">\n\nAt the same time, art is an easy distraction when it comes time to criticize wasteful spending. \nPlenty more is wasted on projects that achieve far less (which is saying something) due to corruption, inefficiency, lack of oversight, etc. \nHow much is lost as a result of a financial system fluctuating for seemingly no reason on any given day? How much has been spent to support these institutions? How much of the problems we're concerned with were created as a direct result of these institutions and the lack of adequate regulation?\nI'm not saying your points aren't valid, nor that someone who's struggling in these communities shouldn't feel pissed off when they see this statue, but just that possibly as a result of art being what it is, it's easy to make it a symbol in a way that draws more attention than arguably far more relevant issues.", ">\n\nI want to be clear, I'm not coming out against public art (and frankly, I actually appreciate this humungous arm sculpture). I guess more than anything, I'm just playing devil's advocate or talking through some challenges I have with my own normative ethical framework. As much as I value beautiful things, it seems wrong to install a big, expensive, fuck-off statue when people might be living in tents on the same street. But at the same time, it feels wrong to say indulging in aesthetics is immoral as long as there's a single person who's not getting enough to eat. \nI agree though, I think there's a lot more waste in commerce than in art, and we don't really account for that waste because it's less visible and it's taking place in a sphere that's meant to be productive.", ">\n\nY’all really made a monument to MLK where his head is missing?", ">\n\nand based on a picture of him hugging his wife who he routinely cheated on. Everything this statue highlights and ignores is weird.", ">\n\nAnd, to add that last little bit of insult to injury, it doesn't even get the pose right from the picture.", ">\n\nIt makes more sense now that I see the photo that inspired it, but it's still odd looking and too large. It dominates the space.", ">\n\nYou really like those fighters, don't you?", ">\n\nI mean if you’re talking about dominating space you really can’t avoid discussing the tactical advantages that the F-104 Starfighter brings to the table", ">\n\nAt quick glance it looks like hands covering an asshole (excuse my language)", ">\n\nIt's Reddit, you're excused.", ">\n\n\"MLK monument has Boston up in arms\"\ni mean, c'mon - it was right there", ">\n\nDid they have like a mock prototype before building this thing? No one sat there and said, “maybe this doesn’t look all that great.”", ">\n\nMore than likely they did, and I guarantee all the mock-ups showed one specific angle where the art works. No one in charged thought to ask how it would look at different angles or just assumed it would make sense once you take in the whole thing. It’s also way easier to make a pitch and sway concerns to a small limited audience over the larger general public. \nAlso, I’d be money the mock-ups looked slightly different than the end result. Things change when reality strikes. Material cost change so things get scaled back, maybe there were other elements like lights or accent pieces to direct viewer’s eyes but got cut due to budget reasons. \nMore than likely though, the people in charge had no idea what “good” art is and just wanted something. There was no oversight, no real check ins, and anytime the artist said something it probably went in one ear and out the other. “Sounds good, just get it done”.", ">\n\nThe backstory to this and the artist, was on CBS Sunday Morning back in December. It should be on You Tube if anyone is interested. The aluminum cast that the assistants were polishing before it was dipped in bronze, looked a lot better; eventhough it reminded you of the \"Bean\" in Grant Park in Chicago. The final version doesn't even have the reflective finish the entry picture said it would.\nThe main problem for me, is that it's based off a picture of Dr. King that vast majority of people haven't seen, so wouldn't immediate associate with him. I think the artist was thinking more about his personal feelings, than how the general publoc could relate.\nThat being said, the last two finalists on that list were BEAUTIFUL and interactive. I just can't understand what the selection committee was thinking.", ">\n\nGive me $10mil and I’ll do better", ">\n\nI'll do the job for half that", ">\n\nI'll do it for a third of 10mil. But, I'll need half that up front for materials, other half on completion. I'll get started just as soon as that first check clears. Trust me!", ">\n\nJust buy 3 small squadron of F-104 Starfighters\nEveryone will be happier\nEasier to fight racism with a fighter jet", ">\n\nHuh... can't argue with that logic!", ">\n\nA complete miss in it’s conception, execution and intention.", ">\n\nbut a very successful reach-around, from certain angles.", ">\n\nOMG a reach-around is exactly what I thought the sculpture looked like, lol", ">\n\nWithout reading headlines, my first reaction to this monument was 'why did somebody make a sculpture of someone stuffing their head up their own ass'\nEdit: typo", ">\n\nOmg, I am crying-laughing right now!", ">\n\nMy throat's hurting from laughing so hard.", ">\n\nIt's honestly pretty bad. If nobody knows what they are looking at then the statue is a bust.", ">\n\nCan't be a bust, there's no head anywhere on it.", ">\n\nOh from some of the assessments of it I've seen on Twitter there's definitely head.", ">\n\nWe could do something like police reform or stop racist gerrymandering but we get this instead. I'm sure MLK's dream was a weird statue of his and his wife's arms.", ">\n\nBoston is one of the most redlined cities in America. Our black communities could REALLY use that $10m.", ">\n\nFuck, they could have built a better statue and still had $9mil left for good causes.", ">\n\nThe first photo of it I saw was from single angle, and good chunk of it was hidden by the fence, you could only see the top part of it. So, I was like, OK, somebody figured out particular angle to make it look bad in order to mock it.\nBut now that it is fully visible and I saw many more photos of it from different angles... Yeah, I don't think the concept really worked well in this particular case. This is where artist should have been like \"OK, this doesn't really work all that well, I should either put more work into it, or try some different idea.\"", ">\n\nIt works from specific angles, but if your statur is in an open space it should look great from most angles.", ">\n\nIt should have been a plaque with a graven image of Martin Luther King with the date every time foundations are able to donate the money that they instead would have spent on bad art. They could have spent that money with a bunch of different charitable foundations and had enough left over to employ somebody for the next 10 years to make sure that that donation money was spent correctly.", ">\n\nSo far, we're up to a giant penis, 69ing, and holding a giant clump of shit. What other interpretations of this...unique specimen are out there?", ">\n\nYou forgot cunnilingus.", ">\n\nMy very first thought when I saw it on twitter. It only looks good from one specific angle but its so huge that if your were to see it in person you're looking at the many more ugly angles. Everything about it is just awful if it weren't dedicated to MLK I would probably consider spray painting something on it to at least make it less ugly.", ">\n\nIdk why they didn't just make it their whole bodies. Like a normal statue of them hugging.", ">\n\nAbstractions can be beautiful. The human mind is great at connecting dots.\nBut here clearly there was no feedback process.", ">\n\nYeah this piece shows the problem with abstractions too. Sometimes you can remove so many details and leave too many dots unconnected that your audience ends up connecting two of them together in a way you never intended.\nAnd that's how you have penis/poop/cunnilingus statue instead of arms.", ">\n\nIn fairness, ambiguity and confusion are valid themes to explore as an artist. It's only a problem if you expect all art to be immediately legible. \nThat said, I doubt that was this artist's intention, which is too bad, because the more I read the criticism, the more valid it seems as a criticism of people's sense of ownership over MLK's legacy." ]

[ "Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”\n“If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.\n\nThe first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful.", ">\n\nThe first view I saw of it looked like two arms holding up the biggest butt log in history.", ">\n\nRandy Marsh was here", ">\n\nI wonder how many Bonos that statue weighs 🤔", ">\n\nCourics! (I know what I'm talking about, im from zurich)", ">\n\nDoes Bono want the bitty?", ">\n\nEasy, Bono, that hurts the bitty!\nBono: BIT-TY!!", ">\n\nI’ll be honest it isn’t my taste, the MLK granite head in DC is much better.", ">\n\nThe head that is almost his whole body?", ">\n\n\"excuse me, sir. you're sitting on my body, which is also my face\"", ">\n\nIs butt legs?", ">\n\nButt is definitely legs.", ">\n\nIt's like a five-dimensional creature eating itself.\n\nEmbrace Boston, a nonprofit organization that works toward racial and economic justice and is a part of the Boston Foundation, helped provide resources and $10.5 million in funds, including a maintenance fund, for “The Embrace” and the Freedom Plaza.", ">\n\nDear god, think how far 10 mil could go toward education or helping homeless people or providing services to the addicted. This makes me pretty sick. It's both ugly and incomprehensible. Even a stick figure lets you know what it is.", ">\n\nThis. I understand the need to memorialize but it seems insensitive to sink millions into remembering the dead when that money could be used to help the living. If they are important then we should make sure to teach their history to younger generations, not build a statue many will never see. Malcolm Gadwell did a great episode these kind of situations and the dark reality of how those funds could be better implemented", ">\n\nI don’t necessarily disagree, but couldn’t we make this same argument for every dollar spent on arts or decoration or even personal luxuries?", ">\n\nIt's the classic slippery slope situation. Again, I do not do this argument as much justice as Malcolm Gladwell does in his podcast episode but it's less about expenses and more about extreme expenses like what this statue cost. His example is of the 9/11 memorial and the cost and extreme disruption it caused NYC and the hard question of its true worth; it's an extremely interesting conversation and I encourage people to give it a listen. \nArt will also always be tricky because of the influx of wealthy people who use it as a tool for tax write-offs and consolidating wealth. It's tricky, but I'm just curious to know more. Who donated the money for this statue, why did they donate, did they know this was were the money was going towards, and so on. I'd rather know how these decisions came about rather than just be mad at the consequences; without that insight the same mistakes will keep getting made.", ">\n\nI don't think it's necessarily a slippery slope, I'm just asking us to apply the principle consistently. Any dollar spent on luxury or decoration could instead be spent providing necessities to people who lack them, and if it's immoral to spend $10 million on some humungous arm statue, isn't it also immoral to spend $10,000 on a more modest piece of public art?\nThis is an old response to (or component of) utilitarianism: something like, can we really justify buying new clothes or going on vacations or even spending an extra few bucks on an expensive coffee drink when that money could be feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, providing life-saving medical care, etc.\nAnd I'm not totally sure how to square this. Intuitively, it seems kind of wrong to say we ought to eschew all luxury -- that just about anything we do beyond the satisfaction of our needs is wrong as long as there are people whose needs aren't met. A lot of the texture of life comes from little excesses here and there, and any normative ethical theory that demands us to give up all but the barest comforts just feels wrong (or at the very least, it seems too demanding to really be of much practical use). But at the same time, if we believe an act is good inasmuch as it maximizes happiness or reduces suffering, it does seem to follow that just about any leisure or luxury we engage in is immoral (unless you genuinely think there's more utility in, say, chugging a latte than in providing a malaria shot to some kid in rural Nigeria -- or more utility in sitting at home watching Netflix instead of, say, manning a soup kitchen). \nI guess, like you said, there's still the issue of scale. Spending $1.5 billion on the 9/11 memorial piece is more wrong than going out for a fancy dinner (or commissioning a less extravagant piece), in the same sense that stealing your friend's car is worse than stealing a french fry off his plate.", ">\n\nAt the same time, art is an easy distraction when it comes time to criticize wasteful spending. \nPlenty more is wasted on projects that achieve far less (which is saying something) due to corruption, inefficiency, lack of oversight, etc. \nHow much is lost as a result of a financial system fluctuating for seemingly no reason on any given day? How much has been spent to support these institutions? How much of the problems we're concerned with were created as a direct result of these institutions and the lack of adequate regulation?\nI'm not saying your points aren't valid, nor that someone who's struggling in these communities shouldn't feel pissed off when they see this statue, but just that possibly as a result of art being what it is, it's easy to make it a symbol in a way that draws more attention than arguably far more relevant issues.", ">\n\nI want to be clear, I'm not coming out against public art (and frankly, I actually appreciate this humungous arm sculpture). I guess more than anything, I'm just playing devil's advocate or talking through some challenges I have with my own normative ethical framework. As much as I value beautiful things, it seems wrong to install a big, expensive, fuck-off statue when people might be living in tents on the same street. But at the same time, it feels wrong to say indulging in aesthetics is immoral as long as there's a single person who's not getting enough to eat. \nI agree though, I think there's a lot more waste in commerce than in art, and we don't really account for that waste because it's less visible and it's taking place in a sphere that's meant to be productive.", ">\n\nY’all really made a monument to MLK where his head is missing?", ">\n\nand based on a picture of him hugging his wife who he routinely cheated on. Everything this statue highlights and ignores is weird.", ">\n\nAnd, to add that last little bit of insult to injury, it doesn't even get the pose right from the picture.", ">\n\nIt makes more sense now that I see the photo that inspired it, but it's still odd looking and too large. It dominates the space.", ">\n\nYou really like those fighters, don't you?", ">\n\nI mean if you’re talking about dominating space you really can’t avoid discussing the tactical advantages that the F-104 Starfighter brings to the table", ">\n\nAt quick glance it looks like hands covering an asshole (excuse my language)", ">\n\nIt's Reddit, you're excused.", ">\n\n\"MLK monument has Boston up in arms\"\ni mean, c'mon - it was right there", ">\n\nDid they have like a mock prototype before building this thing? No one sat there and said, “maybe this doesn’t look all that great.”", ">\n\nMore than likely they did, and I guarantee all the mock-ups showed one specific angle where the art works. No one in charged thought to ask how it would look at different angles or just assumed it would make sense once you take in the whole thing. It’s also way easier to make a pitch and sway concerns to a small limited audience over the larger general public. \nAlso, I’d be money the mock-ups looked slightly different than the end result. Things change when reality strikes. Material cost change so things get scaled back, maybe there were other elements like lights or accent pieces to direct viewer’s eyes but got cut due to budget reasons. \nMore than likely though, the people in charge had no idea what “good” art is and just wanted something. There was no oversight, no real check ins, and anytime the artist said something it probably went in one ear and out the other. “Sounds good, just get it done”.", ">\n\nThe backstory to this and the artist, was on CBS Sunday Morning back in December. It should be on You Tube if anyone is interested. The aluminum cast that the assistants were polishing before it was dipped in bronze, looked a lot better; eventhough it reminded you of the \"Bean\" in Grant Park in Chicago. The final version doesn't even have the reflective finish the entry picture said it would.\nThe main problem for me, is that it's based off a picture of Dr. King that vast majority of people haven't seen, so wouldn't immediate associate with him. I think the artist was thinking more about his personal feelings, than how the general publoc could relate.\nThat being said, the last two finalists on that list were BEAUTIFUL and interactive. I just can't understand what the selection committee was thinking.", ">\n\nGive me $10mil and I’ll do better", ">\n\nI'll do the job for half that", ">\n\nI'll do it for a third of 10mil. But, I'll need half that up front for materials, other half on completion. I'll get started just as soon as that first check clears. Trust me!", ">\n\nJust buy 3 small squadron of F-104 Starfighters\nEveryone will be happier\nEasier to fight racism with a fighter jet", ">\n\nHuh... can't argue with that logic!", ">\n\nA complete miss in it’s conception, execution and intention.", ">\n\nbut a very successful reach-around, from certain angles.", ">\n\nOMG a reach-around is exactly what I thought the sculpture looked like, lol", ">\n\nWithout reading headlines, my first reaction to this monument was 'why did somebody make a sculpture of someone stuffing their head up their own ass'\nEdit: typo", ">\n\nOmg, I am crying-laughing right now!", ">\n\nMy throat's hurting from laughing so hard.", ">\n\nIt's honestly pretty bad. If nobody knows what they are looking at then the statue is a bust.", ">\n\nCan't be a bust, there's no head anywhere on it.", ">\n\nOh from some of the assessments of it I've seen on Twitter there's definitely head.", ">\n\nWe could do something like police reform or stop racist gerrymandering but we get this instead. I'm sure MLK's dream was a weird statue of his and his wife's arms.", ">\n\nBoston is one of the most redlined cities in America. Our black communities could REALLY use that $10m.", ">\n\nFuck, they could have built a better statue and still had $9mil left for good causes.", ">\n\nThe first photo of it I saw was from single angle, and good chunk of it was hidden by the fence, you could only see the top part of it. So, I was like, OK, somebody figured out particular angle to make it look bad in order to mock it.\nBut now that it is fully visible and I saw many more photos of it from different angles... Yeah, I don't think the concept really worked well in this particular case. This is where artist should have been like \"OK, this doesn't really work all that well, I should either put more work into it, or try some different idea.\"", ">\n\nIt works from specific angles, but if your statur is in an open space it should look great from most angles.", ">\n\nIt should have been a plaque with a graven image of Martin Luther King with the date every time foundations are able to donate the money that they instead would have spent on bad art. They could have spent that money with a bunch of different charitable foundations and had enough left over to employ somebody for the next 10 years to make sure that that donation money was spent correctly.", ">\n\nSo far, we're up to a giant penis, 69ing, and holding a giant clump of shit. What other interpretations of this...unique specimen are out there?", ">\n\nYou forgot cunnilingus.", ">\n\nMy very first thought when I saw it on twitter. It only looks good from one specific angle but its so huge that if your were to see it in person you're looking at the many more ugly angles. Everything about it is just awful if it weren't dedicated to MLK I would probably consider spray painting something on it to at least make it less ugly.", ">\n\nIdk why they didn't just make it their whole bodies. Like a normal statue of them hugging.", ">\n\nAbstractions can be beautiful. The human mind is great at connecting dots.\nBut here clearly there was no feedback process.", ">\n\nYeah this piece shows the problem with abstractions too. Sometimes you can remove so many details and leave too many dots unconnected that your audience ends up connecting two of them together in a way you never intended.\nAnd that's how you have penis/poop/cunnilingus statue instead of arms.", ">\n\nIn fairness, ambiguity and confusion are valid themes to explore as an artist. It's only a problem if you expect all art to be immediately legible. \nThat said, I doubt that was this artist's intention, which is too bad, because the more I read the criticism, the more valid it seems as a criticism of people's sense of ownership over MLK's legacy.", ">\n\nIt looks like a reminder to get a colonoscopy" ]

[ "Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”\n“If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.\n\nThe first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful.", ">\n\nThe first view I saw of it looked like two arms holding up the biggest butt log in history.", ">\n\nRandy Marsh was here", ">\n\nI wonder how many Bonos that statue weighs 🤔", ">\n\nCourics! (I know what I'm talking about, im from zurich)", ">\n\nDoes Bono want the bitty?", ">\n\nEasy, Bono, that hurts the bitty!\nBono: BIT-TY!!", ">\n\nI’ll be honest it isn’t my taste, the MLK granite head in DC is much better.", ">\n\nThe head that is almost his whole body?", ">\n\n\"excuse me, sir. you're sitting on my body, which is also my face\"", ">\n\nIs butt legs?", ">\n\nButt is definitely legs.", ">\n\nIt's like a five-dimensional creature eating itself.\n\nEmbrace Boston, a nonprofit organization that works toward racial and economic justice and is a part of the Boston Foundation, helped provide resources and $10.5 million in funds, including a maintenance fund, for “The Embrace” and the Freedom Plaza.", ">\n\nDear god, think how far 10 mil could go toward education or helping homeless people or providing services to the addicted. This makes me pretty sick. It's both ugly and incomprehensible. Even a stick figure lets you know what it is.", ">\n\nThis. I understand the need to memorialize but it seems insensitive to sink millions into remembering the dead when that money could be used to help the living. If they are important then we should make sure to teach their history to younger generations, not build a statue many will never see. Malcolm Gadwell did a great episode these kind of situations and the dark reality of how those funds could be better implemented", ">\n\nI don’t necessarily disagree, but couldn’t we make this same argument for every dollar spent on arts or decoration or even personal luxuries?", ">\n\nIt's the classic slippery slope situation. Again, I do not do this argument as much justice as Malcolm Gladwell does in his podcast episode but it's less about expenses and more about extreme expenses like what this statue cost. His example is of the 9/11 memorial and the cost and extreme disruption it caused NYC and the hard question of its true worth; it's an extremely interesting conversation and I encourage people to give it a listen. \nArt will also always be tricky because of the influx of wealthy people who use it as a tool for tax write-offs and consolidating wealth. It's tricky, but I'm just curious to know more. Who donated the money for this statue, why did they donate, did they know this was were the money was going towards, and so on. I'd rather know how these decisions came about rather than just be mad at the consequences; without that insight the same mistakes will keep getting made.", ">\n\nI don't think it's necessarily a slippery slope, I'm just asking us to apply the principle consistently. Any dollar spent on luxury or decoration could instead be spent providing necessities to people who lack them, and if it's immoral to spend $10 million on some humungous arm statue, isn't it also immoral to spend $10,000 on a more modest piece of public art?\nThis is an old response to (or component of) utilitarianism: something like, can we really justify buying new clothes or going on vacations or even spending an extra few bucks on an expensive coffee drink when that money could be feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, providing life-saving medical care, etc.\nAnd I'm not totally sure how to square this. Intuitively, it seems kind of wrong to say we ought to eschew all luxury -- that just about anything we do beyond the satisfaction of our needs is wrong as long as there are people whose needs aren't met. A lot of the texture of life comes from little excesses here and there, and any normative ethical theory that demands us to give up all but the barest comforts just feels wrong (or at the very least, it seems too demanding to really be of much practical use). But at the same time, if we believe an act is good inasmuch as it maximizes happiness or reduces suffering, it does seem to follow that just about any leisure or luxury we engage in is immoral (unless you genuinely think there's more utility in, say, chugging a latte than in providing a malaria shot to some kid in rural Nigeria -- or more utility in sitting at home watching Netflix instead of, say, manning a soup kitchen). \nI guess, like you said, there's still the issue of scale. Spending $1.5 billion on the 9/11 memorial piece is more wrong than going out for a fancy dinner (or commissioning a less extravagant piece), in the same sense that stealing your friend's car is worse than stealing a french fry off his plate.", ">\n\nAt the same time, art is an easy distraction when it comes time to criticize wasteful spending. \nPlenty more is wasted on projects that achieve far less (which is saying something) due to corruption, inefficiency, lack of oversight, etc. \nHow much is lost as a result of a financial system fluctuating for seemingly no reason on any given day? How much has been spent to support these institutions? How much of the problems we're concerned with were created as a direct result of these institutions and the lack of adequate regulation?\nI'm not saying your points aren't valid, nor that someone who's struggling in these communities shouldn't feel pissed off when they see this statue, but just that possibly as a result of art being what it is, it's easy to make it a symbol in a way that draws more attention than arguably far more relevant issues.", ">\n\nI want to be clear, I'm not coming out against public art (and frankly, I actually appreciate this humungous arm sculpture). I guess more than anything, I'm just playing devil's advocate or talking through some challenges I have with my own normative ethical framework. As much as I value beautiful things, it seems wrong to install a big, expensive, fuck-off statue when people might be living in tents on the same street. But at the same time, it feels wrong to say indulging in aesthetics is immoral as long as there's a single person who's not getting enough to eat. \nI agree though, I think there's a lot more waste in commerce than in art, and we don't really account for that waste because it's less visible and it's taking place in a sphere that's meant to be productive.", ">\n\nY’all really made a monument to MLK where his head is missing?", ">\n\nand based on a picture of him hugging his wife who he routinely cheated on. Everything this statue highlights and ignores is weird.", ">\n\nAnd, to add that last little bit of insult to injury, it doesn't even get the pose right from the picture.", ">\n\nIt makes more sense now that I see the photo that inspired it, but it's still odd looking and too large. It dominates the space.", ">\n\nYou really like those fighters, don't you?", ">\n\nI mean if you’re talking about dominating space you really can’t avoid discussing the tactical advantages that the F-104 Starfighter brings to the table", ">\n\nAt quick glance it looks like hands covering an asshole (excuse my language)", ">\n\nIt's Reddit, you're excused.", ">\n\n\"MLK monument has Boston up in arms\"\ni mean, c'mon - it was right there", ">\n\nDid they have like a mock prototype before building this thing? No one sat there and said, “maybe this doesn’t look all that great.”", ">\n\nMore than likely they did, and I guarantee all the mock-ups showed one specific angle where the art works. No one in charged thought to ask how it would look at different angles or just assumed it would make sense once you take in the whole thing. It’s also way easier to make a pitch and sway concerns to a small limited audience over the larger general public. \nAlso, I’d be money the mock-ups looked slightly different than the end result. Things change when reality strikes. Material cost change so things get scaled back, maybe there were other elements like lights or accent pieces to direct viewer’s eyes but got cut due to budget reasons. \nMore than likely though, the people in charge had no idea what “good” art is and just wanted something. There was no oversight, no real check ins, and anytime the artist said something it probably went in one ear and out the other. “Sounds good, just get it done”.", ">\n\nThe backstory to this and the artist, was on CBS Sunday Morning back in December. It should be on You Tube if anyone is interested. The aluminum cast that the assistants were polishing before it was dipped in bronze, looked a lot better; eventhough it reminded you of the \"Bean\" in Grant Park in Chicago. The final version doesn't even have the reflective finish the entry picture said it would.\nThe main problem for me, is that it's based off a picture of Dr. King that vast majority of people haven't seen, so wouldn't immediate associate with him. I think the artist was thinking more about his personal feelings, than how the general publoc could relate.\nThat being said, the last two finalists on that list were BEAUTIFUL and interactive. I just can't understand what the selection committee was thinking.", ">\n\nGive me $10mil and I’ll do better", ">\n\nI'll do the job for half that", ">\n\nI'll do it for a third of 10mil. But, I'll need half that up front for materials, other half on completion. I'll get started just as soon as that first check clears. Trust me!", ">\n\nJust buy 3 small squadron of F-104 Starfighters\nEveryone will be happier\nEasier to fight racism with a fighter jet", ">\n\nHuh... can't argue with that logic!", ">\n\nA complete miss in it’s conception, execution and intention.", ">\n\nbut a very successful reach-around, from certain angles.", ">\n\nOMG a reach-around is exactly what I thought the sculpture looked like, lol", ">\n\nWithout reading headlines, my first reaction to this monument was 'why did somebody make a sculpture of someone stuffing their head up their own ass'\nEdit: typo", ">\n\nOmg, I am crying-laughing right now!", ">\n\nMy throat's hurting from laughing so hard.", ">\n\nIt's honestly pretty bad. If nobody knows what they are looking at then the statue is a bust.", ">\n\nCan't be a bust, there's no head anywhere on it.", ">\n\nOh from some of the assessments of it I've seen on Twitter there's definitely head.", ">\n\nWe could do something like police reform or stop racist gerrymandering but we get this instead. I'm sure MLK's dream was a weird statue of his and his wife's arms.", ">\n\nBoston is one of the most redlined cities in America. Our black communities could REALLY use that $10m.", ">\n\nFuck, they could have built a better statue and still had $9mil left for good causes.", ">\n\nThe first photo of it I saw was from single angle, and good chunk of it was hidden by the fence, you could only see the top part of it. So, I was like, OK, somebody figured out particular angle to make it look bad in order to mock it.\nBut now that it is fully visible and I saw many more photos of it from different angles... Yeah, I don't think the concept really worked well in this particular case. This is where artist should have been like \"OK, this doesn't really work all that well, I should either put more work into it, or try some different idea.\"", ">\n\nIt works from specific angles, but if your statur is in an open space it should look great from most angles.", ">\n\nIt should have been a plaque with a graven image of Martin Luther King with the date every time foundations are able to donate the money that they instead would have spent on bad art. They could have spent that money with a bunch of different charitable foundations and had enough left over to employ somebody for the next 10 years to make sure that that donation money was spent correctly.", ">\n\nSo far, we're up to a giant penis, 69ing, and holding a giant clump of shit. What other interpretations of this...unique specimen are out there?", ">\n\nYou forgot cunnilingus.", ">\n\nMy very first thought when I saw it on twitter. It only looks good from one specific angle but its so huge that if your were to see it in person you're looking at the many more ugly angles. Everything about it is just awful if it weren't dedicated to MLK I would probably consider spray painting something on it to at least make it less ugly.", ">\n\nIdk why they didn't just make it their whole bodies. Like a normal statue of them hugging.", ">\n\nAbstractions can be beautiful. The human mind is great at connecting dots.\nBut here clearly there was no feedback process.", ">\n\nYeah this piece shows the problem with abstractions too. Sometimes you can remove so many details and leave too many dots unconnected that your audience ends up connecting two of them together in a way you never intended.\nAnd that's how you have penis/poop/cunnilingus statue instead of arms.", ">\n\nIn fairness, ambiguity and confusion are valid themes to explore as an artist. It's only a problem if you expect all art to be immediately legible. \nThat said, I doubt that was this artist's intention, which is too bad, because the more I read the criticism, the more valid it seems as a criticism of people's sense of ownership over MLK's legacy.", ">\n\nIt looks like a reminder to get a colonoscopy", ">\n\nSomebody got paid 10 million for this crap.." ]

[ "Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”\n“If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.\n\nThe first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful.", ">\n\nThe first view I saw of it looked like two arms holding up the biggest butt log in history.", ">\n\nRandy Marsh was here", ">\n\nI wonder how many Bonos that statue weighs 🤔", ">\n\nCourics! (I know what I'm talking about, im from zurich)", ">\n\nDoes Bono want the bitty?", ">\n\nEasy, Bono, that hurts the bitty!\nBono: BIT-TY!!", ">\n\nI’ll be honest it isn’t my taste, the MLK granite head in DC is much better.", ">\n\nThe head that is almost his whole body?", ">\n\n\"excuse me, sir. you're sitting on my body, which is also my face\"", ">\n\nIs butt legs?", ">\n\nButt is definitely legs.", ">\n\nIt's like a five-dimensional creature eating itself.\n\nEmbrace Boston, a nonprofit organization that works toward racial and economic justice and is a part of the Boston Foundation, helped provide resources and $10.5 million in funds, including a maintenance fund, for “The Embrace” and the Freedom Plaza.", ">\n\nDear god, think how far 10 mil could go toward education or helping homeless people or providing services to the addicted. This makes me pretty sick. It's both ugly and incomprehensible. Even a stick figure lets you know what it is.", ">\n\nThis. I understand the need to memorialize but it seems insensitive to sink millions into remembering the dead when that money could be used to help the living. If they are important then we should make sure to teach their history to younger generations, not build a statue many will never see. Malcolm Gadwell did a great episode these kind of situations and the dark reality of how those funds could be better implemented", ">\n\nI don’t necessarily disagree, but couldn’t we make this same argument for every dollar spent on arts or decoration or even personal luxuries?", ">\n\nIt's the classic slippery slope situation. Again, I do not do this argument as much justice as Malcolm Gladwell does in his podcast episode but it's less about expenses and more about extreme expenses like what this statue cost. His example is of the 9/11 memorial and the cost and extreme disruption it caused NYC and the hard question of its true worth; it's an extremely interesting conversation and I encourage people to give it a listen. \nArt will also always be tricky because of the influx of wealthy people who use it as a tool for tax write-offs and consolidating wealth. It's tricky, but I'm just curious to know more. Who donated the money for this statue, why did they donate, did they know this was were the money was going towards, and so on. I'd rather know how these decisions came about rather than just be mad at the consequences; without that insight the same mistakes will keep getting made.", ">\n\nI don't think it's necessarily a slippery slope, I'm just asking us to apply the principle consistently. Any dollar spent on luxury or decoration could instead be spent providing necessities to people who lack them, and if it's immoral to spend $10 million on some humungous arm statue, isn't it also immoral to spend $10,000 on a more modest piece of public art?\nThis is an old response to (or component of) utilitarianism: something like, can we really justify buying new clothes or going on vacations or even spending an extra few bucks on an expensive coffee drink when that money could be feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, providing life-saving medical care, etc.\nAnd I'm not totally sure how to square this. Intuitively, it seems kind of wrong to say we ought to eschew all luxury -- that just about anything we do beyond the satisfaction of our needs is wrong as long as there are people whose needs aren't met. A lot of the texture of life comes from little excesses here and there, and any normative ethical theory that demands us to give up all but the barest comforts just feels wrong (or at the very least, it seems too demanding to really be of much practical use). But at the same time, if we believe an act is good inasmuch as it maximizes happiness or reduces suffering, it does seem to follow that just about any leisure or luxury we engage in is immoral (unless you genuinely think there's more utility in, say, chugging a latte than in providing a malaria shot to some kid in rural Nigeria -- or more utility in sitting at home watching Netflix instead of, say, manning a soup kitchen). \nI guess, like you said, there's still the issue of scale. Spending $1.5 billion on the 9/11 memorial piece is more wrong than going out for a fancy dinner (or commissioning a less extravagant piece), in the same sense that stealing your friend's car is worse than stealing a french fry off his plate.", ">\n\nAt the same time, art is an easy distraction when it comes time to criticize wasteful spending. \nPlenty more is wasted on projects that achieve far less (which is saying something) due to corruption, inefficiency, lack of oversight, etc. \nHow much is lost as a result of a financial system fluctuating for seemingly no reason on any given day? How much has been spent to support these institutions? How much of the problems we're concerned with were created as a direct result of these institutions and the lack of adequate regulation?\nI'm not saying your points aren't valid, nor that someone who's struggling in these communities shouldn't feel pissed off when they see this statue, but just that possibly as a result of art being what it is, it's easy to make it a symbol in a way that draws more attention than arguably far more relevant issues.", ">\n\nI want to be clear, I'm not coming out against public art (and frankly, I actually appreciate this humungous arm sculpture). I guess more than anything, I'm just playing devil's advocate or talking through some challenges I have with my own normative ethical framework. As much as I value beautiful things, it seems wrong to install a big, expensive, fuck-off statue when people might be living in tents on the same street. But at the same time, it feels wrong to say indulging in aesthetics is immoral as long as there's a single person who's not getting enough to eat. \nI agree though, I think there's a lot more waste in commerce than in art, and we don't really account for that waste because it's less visible and it's taking place in a sphere that's meant to be productive.", ">\n\nY’all really made a monument to MLK where his head is missing?", ">\n\nand based on a picture of him hugging his wife who he routinely cheated on. Everything this statue highlights and ignores is weird.", ">\n\nAnd, to add that last little bit of insult to injury, it doesn't even get the pose right from the picture.", ">\n\nIt makes more sense now that I see the photo that inspired it, but it's still odd looking and too large. It dominates the space.", ">\n\nYou really like those fighters, don't you?", ">\n\nI mean if you’re talking about dominating space you really can’t avoid discussing the tactical advantages that the F-104 Starfighter brings to the table", ">\n\nAt quick glance it looks like hands covering an asshole (excuse my language)", ">\n\nIt's Reddit, you're excused.", ">\n\n\"MLK monument has Boston up in arms\"\ni mean, c'mon - it was right there", ">\n\nDid they have like a mock prototype before building this thing? No one sat there and said, “maybe this doesn’t look all that great.”", ">\n\nMore than likely they did, and I guarantee all the mock-ups showed one specific angle where the art works. No one in charged thought to ask how it would look at different angles or just assumed it would make sense once you take in the whole thing. It’s also way easier to make a pitch and sway concerns to a small limited audience over the larger general public. \nAlso, I’d be money the mock-ups looked slightly different than the end result. Things change when reality strikes. Material cost change so things get scaled back, maybe there were other elements like lights or accent pieces to direct viewer’s eyes but got cut due to budget reasons. \nMore than likely though, the people in charge had no idea what “good” art is and just wanted something. There was no oversight, no real check ins, and anytime the artist said something it probably went in one ear and out the other. “Sounds good, just get it done”.", ">\n\nThe backstory to this and the artist, was on CBS Sunday Morning back in December. It should be on You Tube if anyone is interested. The aluminum cast that the assistants were polishing before it was dipped in bronze, looked a lot better; eventhough it reminded you of the \"Bean\" in Grant Park in Chicago. The final version doesn't even have the reflective finish the entry picture said it would.\nThe main problem for me, is that it's based off a picture of Dr. King that vast majority of people haven't seen, so wouldn't immediate associate with him. I think the artist was thinking more about his personal feelings, than how the general publoc could relate.\nThat being said, the last two finalists on that list were BEAUTIFUL and interactive. I just can't understand what the selection committee was thinking.", ">\n\nGive me $10mil and I’ll do better", ">\n\nI'll do the job for half that", ">\n\nI'll do it for a third of 10mil. But, I'll need half that up front for materials, other half on completion. I'll get started just as soon as that first check clears. Trust me!", ">\n\nJust buy 3 small squadron of F-104 Starfighters\nEveryone will be happier\nEasier to fight racism with a fighter jet", ">\n\nHuh... can't argue with that logic!", ">\n\nA complete miss in it’s conception, execution and intention.", ">\n\nbut a very successful reach-around, from certain angles.", ">\n\nOMG a reach-around is exactly what I thought the sculpture looked like, lol", ">\n\nWithout reading headlines, my first reaction to this monument was 'why did somebody make a sculpture of someone stuffing their head up their own ass'\nEdit: typo", ">\n\nOmg, I am crying-laughing right now!", ">\n\nMy throat's hurting from laughing so hard.", ">\n\nIt's honestly pretty bad. If nobody knows what they are looking at then the statue is a bust.", ">\n\nCan't be a bust, there's no head anywhere on it.", ">\n\nOh from some of the assessments of it I've seen on Twitter there's definitely head.", ">\n\nWe could do something like police reform or stop racist gerrymandering but we get this instead. I'm sure MLK's dream was a weird statue of his and his wife's arms.", ">\n\nBoston is one of the most redlined cities in America. Our black communities could REALLY use that $10m.", ">\n\nFuck, they could have built a better statue and still had $9mil left for good causes.", ">\n\nThe first photo of it I saw was from single angle, and good chunk of it was hidden by the fence, you could only see the top part of it. So, I was like, OK, somebody figured out particular angle to make it look bad in order to mock it.\nBut now that it is fully visible and I saw many more photos of it from different angles... Yeah, I don't think the concept really worked well in this particular case. This is where artist should have been like \"OK, this doesn't really work all that well, I should either put more work into it, or try some different idea.\"", ">\n\nIt works from specific angles, but if your statur is in an open space it should look great from most angles.", ">\n\nIt should have been a plaque with a graven image of Martin Luther King with the date every time foundations are able to donate the money that they instead would have spent on bad art. They could have spent that money with a bunch of different charitable foundations and had enough left over to employ somebody for the next 10 years to make sure that that donation money was spent correctly.", ">\n\nSo far, we're up to a giant penis, 69ing, and holding a giant clump of shit. What other interpretations of this...unique specimen are out there?", ">\n\nYou forgot cunnilingus.", ">\n\nMy very first thought when I saw it on twitter. It only looks good from one specific angle but its so huge that if your were to see it in person you're looking at the many more ugly angles. Everything about it is just awful if it weren't dedicated to MLK I would probably consider spray painting something on it to at least make it less ugly.", ">\n\nIdk why they didn't just make it their whole bodies. Like a normal statue of them hugging.", ">\n\nAbstractions can be beautiful. The human mind is great at connecting dots.\nBut here clearly there was no feedback process.", ">\n\nYeah this piece shows the problem with abstractions too. Sometimes you can remove so many details and leave too many dots unconnected that your audience ends up connecting two of them together in a way you never intended.\nAnd that's how you have penis/poop/cunnilingus statue instead of arms.", ">\n\nIn fairness, ambiguity and confusion are valid themes to explore as an artist. It's only a problem if you expect all art to be immediately legible. \nThat said, I doubt that was this artist's intention, which is too bad, because the more I read the criticism, the more valid it seems as a criticism of people's sense of ownership over MLK's legacy.", ">\n\nIt looks like a reminder to get a colonoscopy", ">\n\nSomebody got paid 10 million for this crap..", ">\n\nAnd this is also a good example that if you want to get rich all you have to do is figure out a way to fuck people over. Because this is straight up robbery without the gun." ]