“but they have not been declared innocent yet.”

I assume you meant disruptor and auto correct changed it (otherwise will need you to explain what you mean by disputer). But what that Heather said makes you assume that. All we know is white lady came in laughing and then flipped shit when confronted. Is there a thing with people disrupting this piece or something?

Would be nice if they would. Though I do still find it amusing that they took their name from a Disney song that is about a non-white and have a jump in ritual. They are literally a gang that named themselves after a (mid quality at best) disney song. They are literally like a collection of after school special bad…

True, I just thought this was all related to the same instance of the crime. Though to be fair, seeing that the Proud Boys rioting is like seeing California had a wild fire during July. Sad, but it doesn’t exactly stick out.

What bait? You trolling or something? As opposed to making a relatively inane strawmanny statement?

That’s really shitty. Sorry you had to go through all of that.

Not really. It means I hold those views while being informed about the information. Not usually what ignorant means. At least on this and as far as the easily obtainable information.

I mean, good. But I thought this was done a while ago (I just assumed the churches had won already). Seems a bit slow for something that happened so long ago. With so much documentation.

Is she a muesum employee, or part of the people the muesum signed with to run the exhibit? Because from the article and her video it seems like she is just a patron who happens to be an artist who is visiting the muesum.

You’re right. Public space would technically mean like a government owned park. What I meant was it’s a public accommodation, as in takes people in from the public, like a resteraunt. I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure MoMA is owned and operated as a non-profit and not as a government institution like the…

Clearly I don't. And clearly I don't agree that I'm wrong. Also, discussing and debating are fairly enjoyable to me (hence why I keep logging into the various Gizmodo sites and commenting).

I thought I was clear in admitting that those had art in them, and then differentiating that from an art Muesum. But I’ll try again.

I’m surprised that a governor is in a position for this. I would have thought that in the case where a state court in another state seeks someone hiding out in another one, that the federal government would handle acquiring and transporting the prisoner.

Which is fair. But if you put out art, random people are going to interact with as they see fit. That’s not to say she wasn’t to loud (though this article and the video just say laughing) to the point of interfering with other peoples enjoyment, and she should have ignored Heather if she wasn’t going to listen to her,…

Do I get a neat sound effect or badge for leveling up?

I meant I go to museum’s that focus on those things. So for instance the Civil Rights and Holocaust museum. They do indeed have art, but art itself isn’t the primary focus (it works specifically to expand the points and lessons the museum’s are trying to teach).

It doesn’t say anywhere in this article or what I watched of Heather’s video that the woman was laughing particularly loudly. Just that after Heather talked to her she started shouting. If her laughter was that loud and was the issue, maybe the museum personel should have asked her to be quite. But instead another…

I mean I wasn’t. But that doesn’t change the fact that if people minded thier own business this article wouldn’t have been written.

I mean, I may very well be. Doesn’t change the fact that I view my point as correct.

Where does it say she was loudly cackling? The article and Heather’s video just say laughing.