4 ms·

Matching 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 p

Matching 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 ago
It 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 ago
  It'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 ago
    This 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 ago
      Which 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.
        Arnt 10y ago
        Sounds as if you're proving that widely-accepted laws are impossible, peelian policework, etc. "It cannot be done to the taste of absolutely all, therefore it cannot be done at all."
        stryk 10y ago
        Oh that's not fair now, come on. My comment was in response to, and concerning, the notion of "overly offensive clothing" and in that narrow instance, your quote is on point -- albeit a tad condescending (not that you were, just that quote itself).
        Arnt 10y ago
        FWIW I think the quote is off, or my translation, so you can blame me. Can't even find the book now, actually.
- jdietrich 10y ago
  >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. If your neighbour had gone out and left their front door open, would you close it for them? If your front lawn crossed the boundary into their property, would you mow the whole lawn? It's not a clear-cut moral or legal issue.
  - chrisseaton 10y ago
    I would close their door (if the situation is as simple as you describe) because I think there is a clear need. I wouldn't mow their property without asking them. Amusing yourself by making a petty point about grammar doesn't even begin to come close to being as reasonable as either of your two examples.
- interfixus 10y ago
  You are not crazy. You are evidently right. The downvotes are shameful.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
jdietrich 10y ago
Under the Criminal Damage Act 1971, the applicable definition is: "A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence." It's not entirely clear that the "grammar vigilante" has actually committed an offence. There is a reasonable argument to be made that he is effecting a repair rather than damage. Consider a "cleanliness vigilante" who cleans dirty windows or a "bicycle repair vigilante" who repairs parked bicycles.
- zeristor 10y ago
  I think they Python's were there ages 40 years ago with the Mr Bicycle Repairman sketch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U01xasUtlvw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U01xasUtlvw
- icebraining 10y ago
  A real example is the use of reverse graffiti: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_graffiti https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_graffiti

Matching 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 ago

It 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 ago
It'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 ago
  This 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 ago
    Which 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.
      - Arnt 10y ago
        Sounds as if you're proving that widely-accepted laws are impossible, peelian policework, etc. "It cannot be done to the taste of absolutely all, therefore it cannot be done at all."
        stryk 10y ago
        Oh that's not fair now, come on. My comment was in response to, and concerning, the notion of "overly offensive clothing" and in that narrow instance, your quote is on point -- albeit a tad condescending (not that you were, just that quote itself).
        Arnt 10y ago
        FWIW I think the quote is off, or my translation, so you can blame me. Can't even find the book now, actually.
jdietrich 10y ago
>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. If your neighbour had gone out and left their front door open, would you close it for them? If your front lawn crossed the boundary into their property, would you mow the whole lawn? It's not a clear-cut moral or legal issue.
- chrisseaton 10y ago
  I would close their door (if the situation is as simple as you describe) because I think there is a clear need. I wouldn't mow their property without asking them. Amusing yourself by making a petty point about grammar doesn't even begin to come close to being as reasonable as either of your two examples.
interfixus 10y ago
You are not crazy. You are evidently right. The downvotes are shameful.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

jdietrich 10y ago

Under the Criminal Damage Act 1971, the applicable definition is: "A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence." It's not entirely clear that the "grammar vigilante" has actually committed an offence. There is a reasonable argument to be made that he is effecting a repair rather than damage. Consider a "cleanliness vigilante" who cleans dirty windows or a "bicycle repair vigilante" who repairs parked bicycles.

zeristor 10y ago
I think they Python's were there ages 40 years ago with the Mr Bicycle Repairman sketch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U01xasUtlvw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U01xasUtlvw
icebraining 10y ago
A real example is the use of reverse graffiti: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_graffiti https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_graffiti