Words can not describe how much this makes my head hurt:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3202767/3000-graffiti-wall-vandalised-by-disgruntled-taxpayer.html

Quote :

"The 6ft high by 30ft long wall was installed so youths could practice their graffiti artwork without vandalising local property. ... But it is now going to cost the taxpayer, as we will have to crime it, investigate it and paint over it. We have been working hard to try to provide something positive for the community and this coward and their juvenile delinquent act has set a terrible example to the youth of the town. ... To paint graffiti on the wall and remain anonymous shows this person has no courage, I would have more respect if he or she came forward and admitted responsibility."

Yes yes I know, they snuck around the security fence to do this before the wall was open, but do we really need an investigation into the graffiti on the graffiti wall?

11/29/2008 10:38:01 AM

awesome

11/29/2008 11:09:39 AM

Par for the course. The powers that be are obsessed with order and discipline.

11/29/2008 12:20:24 PM

Evidently the city council there doesn't read the Economist.

message_topic.aspx?topic=549917

11/29/2008 1:23:07 PM

^ What connection are you trying to make?

11/29/2008 1:28:55 PM

This story makes me laugh so hard

11/29/2008 1:32:50 PM

Quote :

"What connection are you trying to make?"

Sorry. That building a wall for graffiti is counter-productive in reducing crime, which is the intent of the wall. And of course, they build it which led to crime.

11/29/2008 1:45:30 PM

I still don't quite understand what the crime is.

11/29/2008 1:47:23 PM

The wall wasn't... uhh.. "opened" yet.

11/29/2008 2:29:40 PM

so now more tax payers dollars are going to be spent dealing with this "crime"

ha

11/29/2008 4:04:41 PM

11/29/2008 4:30:39 PM

Quote :

"That building a wall for graffiti is counter-productive in reducing crime, which is the intent of the wall."

Read the study again. Why would graffiti in a designated spot increase crime?

11/29/2008 5:02:19 PM

this is like something you'd read in The Onion.

11/29/2008 5:36:06 PM

lol this is so idiotic.

11/29/2008 9:29:35 PM

Quote :

"Read the study again. Why would graffiti in a designated spot increase crime?"

Are you just trying to argue? Maybe you didn't read the study, since the study flat out says that graffiti leads to an increase in other delinquent behavior. So seeing the graffiti, which is associated with minor crime, would increase vandalism in the park that the wall is in. While sure, this graffiti is legal, it is still associated with bad behavior.

11/29/2008 10:20:49 PM

correlation

not the same thing as causality

11/29/2008 11:09:17 PM

Quote :

"Are you just trying to argue?"

No, I'm not. Are you seriously suggesting spray-painted words and images inherently and invariably cause people to litter and steal? The researchers don't make such a bold claim. The presence of graffiti functioned as social cue for disorder in the specific context of the experiments. I'll quote from the article:

Quote :

"As in all of their experiments, the researchers created two conditions: one of order and the other of disorder. In the former, the walls of the alley were freshly painted; in the latter, they were tagged with graffiti (but not elaborately, to avoid the perception that it might be art). In both states a large sign prohibiting graffiti was put up, so that it would not be missed by anyone who came to collect a bicycle."

The combined effect of the sign and the graffiti produced the measured increase in littering. Spray paint on a walled specifically constructed for that purpose shouldn't tend the same signals. The study in no way supports your assertions.

11/29/2008 11:30:06 PM

Quote :

" "

that is really fucking funny.

11/29/2008 11:45:16 PM

I don't think it's super funny. I've tried to get into it. That shit was for kids though.

Our children are still the most underserved group of all.

I'm sure the wall cost way too much. The government has a thing with that.

But coming down hard on the arts/the kids isn't particularly meaningful.

11/30/2008 2:46:18 AM

^

Quote :

"He said it is "ironic" because most of the cost was subsidised by local businesses who supplied free materials and labour. "The ironic thing is that the wall has been built thanks to the generosity of local people giving time and resources for free," he said. "

Wall cost very little to build.

11/30/2008 3:26:34 AM

It seems like if the city were smart they would encourage a bunch of kids to come out and paint over the message in the spirit of the wall rather than spending money to do it.

11/30/2008 7:50:48 AM

Where's the problem? Isn't the whole goal of graffiti about defacing property?

If it comes from a gisgruntled taxpayer- it's a crime?

If it comes from a gang-banger- it's art?

11/30/2008 11:58:14 AM

^ What happened to you? You use to be such a good poster...

11/30/2008 12:33:42 PM

I have 3 friends who tag quite a bit, and twice the cops have fucking come to Ruckus to ask me about them.

Go fight some real goddamn crime, you motherfucking fledgling faggot cops.

11/30/2008 1:16:42 PM

I would rather cops try to fight vandalism than weed smoking and underage drinking.

11/30/2008 1:36:36 PM

this thread is stupider than the wall.

if you'd read the story, you'd see that the cops dont "want" to investigate the goddamned matter, they *have* to, because the was was still officially being constructed by private contractors and not released to public.

see, the automatic investigation of a crime, this is the consequences of living in a society based on the rule of law. of course if we lived in a proper monarchy or theocracy, the local Lord or Bishop could just laugh and wave it all away. some of you cockgobblers should go live in such a place

so, since the wall was ACTUALLY supported by local businesses, its IRONIC that the angry little, unskilled jerkoff who tagged his pathetic screed is actually contributing to more tax waste.

11/30/2008 2:26:19 PM

A benevolent king would be nice sometimes, b/c people are too dumb to run it! (psychology proves this with their study of behavior in groups.

Perot should have just bought this country!!

11/30/2008 3:15:01 PM

^^ What's so wonderful about text as tyrant? Human judgment has various advantages over any rigid code.

11/30/2008 7:58:05 PM

^, ^^

Quote :

"some of you cockgobblers should go live in such a place"

i hear tickets to Dubai are fairly cheap.







[Edited on November 30, 2008 at 11:17 PM. Reason : ]

11/30/2008 11:15:47 PM

If you don't like it here, you can get out, huh?

What other tired tricks do you perform?

11/30/2008 11:26:23 PM

This isn't just ironic. It's fucked up.

The fact that the wall was created for graffiti is unimportant.

This was apparently a community-funded project for children and budding artists. According to my moral code, that's one of the few things not up for vandalism, even if it is "political speech."

Maybe these people were just really, really drunk and not thinking.

12/1/2008 12:09:15 AM

Joe, now that you're done ranting and making a fool of yourself, I suggest you re-read the article. Some of the police may not "want" to investigate, but at least one high ranking (read, makes the call of whether or not to investigate) officer has "vowed to investigate". Most likely because it was his precious project and not because the law says he must.

As far as the rule of law goes, give me a break, police decide all the time what things are worth investigating and what aren't based on whether or not an investigation is likely to turn up any useful information. Don't give us this "we're slaves to the letter of the law" bullshit.

Lastly, while some of the wall was subsidized by local businesses, some of it was also paid for by tax money, and is on public land meaning upkeep will be tax money as well, meaning this person had a legitimate complaint, and expressed it in the manner intended by the wall. The only contribution to tax waste that this guy created was by screwing with an officer's brain child and thereby ensuring that tax money will be wasted on an overblown investigation, rather than someone getting a can of paint and painting over it just like the cops would suggest any other business do.

Bridget, even if it was a community project for "children and budding artists" (read teens without proper supervision and activities), the fact is, the intent of the wall was to allow members of society the ability to express themselves, since his tax dollars payed for part of the wall, he has as much right to express himself as any child or budding artist does. Just because we don't like the message doesn't make it an invalid one.

12/1/2008 8:15:23 AM

Wow. I thought the pic in the thread was just some random graffiti somewhere. So, that's the graffiti they are complaining about then? I guess that makes it clear why they are upset about it. It's some sort of ego thing with someone.

Quote :

"To paint graffiti on the wall and remain anonymous shows this person has no courage, I would have more respect if he or she came forward and admitted responsibility."

Yeah, it's a pride thing. Either they were insulted by the comment on some level or they had some big ribbon cutting ceremony for the fat cats (to waste more money) that is now tainted. Maybe the guy leading the investigation just wanted their snowflake to be the first to paint on the clean slate.

Quote :

"He said it is "ironic" because most of the cost was subsidised by local businesses who supplied free materials and labour."

This guy needs to take a step back and look for other, more "ironic" things in this case.

One last thing I guess. :
1) Build a graffiti wall to encourage would be graffiti artists to paint in one location as opposed to painting on "non-sanctioned" surfaces all over town.
2) Threaten a full investigation on the first person that uses the wall for is intended purpose, calling them juvenile, a coward, and labeling them as a criminal.
3) Completely undermine what you were trying to do in step #1.


[Edited on December 1, 2008 at 1:11 PM. Reason : -]

12/1/2008 12:59:34 PM

Quote :

"GoldenViper: "If you don't like it here, you can get out," huh? What other tired tricks do you perform?"

i dont normally go down that road, but GODDAMN, SON.

when people talk about "the rule of law" in the context of 220 years of the U.S. Constitution in particular and western society in general...

... and then people like you start drooling about how our society might actually benefit by some form of dictatorship

well, holy fuck, there just isn't any point in talking to you. You see, there's a small set of a priori assumptions that you have to accept before discussing politics on any reasonable forum -- I'm sorry to inform you, this is not your Syndicalist Dungeons and Dragons bulletin board.

you wonder why so few people take you seriously. its not because you're out in left field. because you're not. For to be in left field would require you to at least be in the goddamn ballpark. you're so far gone you've just made up your own game and your own rules. you dont even speak the language.

thats why the only response, at that point, is to roll my eyes and suggest one-way air fare.





[Edited on December 2, 2008 at 3:14 AM. Reason : ]

12/2/2008 3:13:59 AM

Quote :

"... and then people like you start drooling about how our society might actually benefit by some form of dictatorship"

I think you've brainwashed yourself into believing a false dichotomy. Show me exactly where I supported dictatorship. If you cannot do this, please withdraw the charge.

12/2/2008 3:07:31 PM

I wrote, with a tinge of sarcasm:

Quote :

"this is the consequence of living in a society based on the rule of law. of course if we lived in a proper monarchy or theocracy, the local Lord or Bishop could just laugh and wave it all away"

which generated the following two immediate responses:

Quote :

"marilynlov7: benevolent king would be nice sometimes, b/c people are too dumb to run it!"

Quote :

"GoldenViper: What's so wonderful about text as tyrant? Human judgment has various advantages over any rigid code"

so, it's pretty clear that you both fall in the "cockgobbler" category which was referred. i'll see no reason to withdraw anything.

12/2/2008 3:31:15 PM

As you've probably noticed, I'm an anarchist. It doesn't take a queer philosopher to figure out my angle on the story.

12/2/2008 3:41:40 PM

As you've probably noticed, anarchists really have no place at the political discussion table. I mean you seem like a nice guy, but I'm afraid you're going to have to sit the children's table.

Now I'm sure you're quite a stellar performer on your fantasy SCA roleplaying forums, though. If only ... if only ... your Renaissance Faire fan clubs could maintain a stake in the American political system.

le sigh.






[Edited on December 2, 2008 at 3:52 PM. Reason : ]

12/2/2008 3:49:40 PM

Quote :

"I mean you seem like a nice guy, but I'm afraid you're going to have to sit the children's table. "

If you were dictator, maybe. Thankfully, I have as much ability to post here as you do. We don't have tables.

I like the whimsical and fluid nature of your attacks. First you lambaste me for supporting dictatorship. When I point out the absurdity of this charge, it doesn't even slow you down. Bravo.

12/2/2008 4:00:41 PM

12/2/2008 7:39:22 PM

Quote :

"Maybe you didn't read the study, since the study flat out says that graffiti leads to an increase in other delinquent behavior. S"

maybe graffiti leads to drug use and drug dealers near the buildings containing graffiti.

CORRELATION 4 the WINZ!

12/2/2008 8:43:19 PM