5 ms·
More power to him! While they covered up the guy's face etc. they've shown his "apostrophizer" - surely that's enough for anyone who spots a guy walking around
by choult 10y ago
More power to him!
While they covered up the guy's face etc. they've shown his "apostrophizer" - surely that's enough for anyone who spots a guy walking around with it at night in a hoodie to pick him out?
- chrisseaton 10y ago> More power to him! Do you really think damaging property belonging to other people is justified by bad grammar?
- H4CK3RM4N 10y agoThe video says he's using stickers instead of paint, so presumably he wouldn't leave lasting damage.
- rishabhsagar 10y agoBristol is a curious place, street paintings by Banksy and work like these actually draw people to these business. Pretty sure that these business will be happy with the outcome.
- 2muchcoffeeman 10y agoI've never really minded graffiti if it was good. I don't think many people in urban areas would really mind either. It's the tagging that's a real eye sore. The same thing over and over again with no artistic merit.
- buovjaga 10y agoOne person's eye sore is other person's calligraphy.
- qubex 10y agoHaving been born in Bristol and frequenting the place quite often, I can confirm this.
- chrisseaton 10y agoI was also born and educated in Bristol, and not everyone there's an anarchist in favour of people being able to paint or sticker or everything they want. And people saying they're ok with graffiti and vandalism are really saying that they're ok with other people's property to be graffitied and vandalised, not their own.
- grkvlt 10y agoI think 'pg agrees with you [0] on graffiti, at least of the 'tagging' kind: > Graffiti happens at the intersection of ambition and incompetence: people want to make their mark on the world, but have no other way to do it than literally making a mark on the world. 0. http://paulgraham.com/trolls.html#f2n http://paulgraham.com/trolls.html#f2n
- icebraining 10y agoYou're seeing this in black and white, which may be the way you think it should be seen, but you should realize it's not the way most people here do. We don't think it's ok for people to "paint or sticker or everything they want", we think this is particular type of alteration is ok.
- quirkafleeg 10y agoNobody said vandalism is okay, nobody said graffiti is okay but only if done to other people's property, and this guy is not painting or stickering everything he wants, he's (non-destructively and for free) fixing bad signage.
- aaron695 10y ago> And people saying they're ok with graffiti and vandalism are really saying that they're ok with other people's property to be graffitied and vandalised, not their own. At an extreme if Banskey wanted to graffity something of mine I'd be incredibly happy so this is just plain incorrect. Probably not big on people tagging my stuff, but this is not what you are implying. Visual pollution is a thing, as you seem to agree since to you graffiti is vandalism (compared to invasion of property rights for instance), but by this standard why does a business owner get to then visually pollute outside of their property?
- jjgreen 10y agoI think its justified
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- thampiman 10y agoit's :)
- 1ba9115454 10y agoI think it's justified. Fixed punctuation.
- isolli 10y agoI think its a joke.
- eecc 10y agoDamage property?! How's that not righteous exaggeration?
- andygates 10y agoMatching typefaces, careful blanking (and I'll bet the kerning he couldn't correct remains annoying) - that's a lot more clever and classy than mere "damaging property".
- chrisseaton 10y agoIt genuinely boggles my mind that you can justify interfering with something that belongs to someone else because you think it's clever or classy. It doesn't matter how classy you think it is if the owner of the property doesn't want it. Everyone here's replying like I'm crazy. I think it's just simply wrong to do anything to something that belongs to someone else without their permission unless you absolutely have to. No matter how trivial or clever it is. It's just wrong.
- Asooka 10y agoIt's on the street and I have no choice in seeing it or not. You're entering my mind without permission, I'm just reclaiming what is mine.
- b6 10y agoThis is the Banksy argument, and it's crazy. When you walk down the street, your face enters the minds of others without permission.
- Arnt 10y agoWhich is the justification for disallowing overly offensive clothing and behaviour. Now you might say that displaying a grammar error isn't anywhere near as offensive as nudity, not even if the grammar error is displayed in the most prominent fashion available to the shop, and for years on end. But I don't think that's a given. It is at least discussable.
- stryk 10y ago"Overly offensive" to whom? Who is the arbiter of what is "offensive" or not? That is far too subjective to be enforced evenly. 'Society' is not an acceptable answer either, every individual has different viewpoints.
- anentropic 10y agoTotally justified, yes
- vacri 10y agoLife must be pretty sweet if we're down to classifying the application of a single sticker as 'damaging property'.
- ue_ 10y agoI think it depends; I'm all for damaging private property, though not necessarily personal property.
- emmelaich 10y agoUsually I'd agree with you, but I'm on the fence on this one. For me, bad spelling and obviously bad grammar are like fingernails on a blackboard. Like a learner's screeching violin to someone with perfect pitch.