My Thoughts on Comments (The Credible, Non-Credible, and the Ugly)

All the comments below can be found here.

This was sort of a tough one. Religion is a polarizing topic, so many comments had an emotional appeal that made it difficult to find a credible comment. Some are somewhat risque, and others are ridiculous. We'll begin with the most crass comment I found.

The Non-Credible and the Ugly

Screen shot from my computer, August 27th 2015.

This commenter doesn't seem to be expressing any rational thought. They're making a silly joke, designed to offend and provoke others, as is fairly evident. It seems as though they enjoy provoking others. I think they have no real standing on the issue, and are feeding off comments that question "well, what if it was the prophet Mohammed??" They have no serious thought to add to the argument, and pretty obviously have no true intention behind what they say. They're unreliable for sure. 

Screen shot from my computer, August 27th 2015.

 This bit took some deciphering to understand. In essence they are arguing that publicly funded art should not be provocative or have any form of social criticism. I believe they side against "Eggs Benedict" and against the Milwaukee County Supervisors themselves. They value "uncontroversial" topics and believe strongly in themselves over others, and wish the piece would be removed. Clearly they harbor some form of resentment against the piece further than the piece itself. It's wholly unreliable, lacked with (self-blanked) expletives and silly insults (i.e. "Lame-duck-duck-duck") The writing style is erratic and the main argument is hard to follow, making it more laughable than effective.

The Credible

Screen shot from my computer, August 27th 2015.

Albigensian is responding to another commenter, willing to begin an actual discussion on the piece.  They seem to side against the museum and value art differently than the museum does, though they don't express any direct desire for the art to be taken down. Their style of writing is clear and concise, quoting directly from the previous comment to build their own argument. They also seem to have some understanding of art, if not a cynical view, and acknowledge the argument of the "danger" of political Islamic art. They seem somewhat knowledgeable and calm, unlike many other arguments in the comments.

Screen shot from my computer, August 27th 2015.

Buitternut also makes a calm and art-based argument. While they don't openly side with the museum, they argue for a broad definition of art and value the provocative nature of "Eggs Benedict." They're reasonable, and manage to reference the contention works of art created by "masters" frequently faced. They make a distinction of where they value art, but still reasonably claim the condom piece is, by artistic free expression, still a work of art.


EDIT:
After looking at blogs like Mike's and Swati's, I felt a little relieved to see that people chose comments in a way similar to me. Profanity, poor grammar, and irrelevant comments seemed to be their basis deciding comments were unreliable and was similar to mine. However I feel that I could have justified my reasons a little bit better under the comment I chose. Swati did an excellent job with her descriptions and made me feel like I could have done a slightly better job. I'll get it right next time!