The Mystery of Fashion

[Aeson]

I understand you are refusing to discuss it. Obviously because you have no answer to the question.

Ad revenue increases the amount of money that can be spent on public spaces. Removing ads from public spaces thus decreases the amount of money that is available to spend on public spaces. How are you suggesting to make up the difference?

[Lorizael]

That "brandalism" then goes and posts their videos on an internet that exists largely because of ads, on an ad funded video service, in a way that will get their videos embedded elsewhere (on ad funded websites) as an ad for the video service and the cause of brandalism ... is hilarious.

[Bereta_Eder]

One could argue that the added value of weaking up some consciousnesses about blind consumerism overcompensates the amount of time those bus stations stayed without revenue (if indeed ads pay for the stations)

[C0ckney]

No, they are using public spaces for their own illegal activities that are not supported by the majority of the public. Rather than organizing to do what would actually change how public spaces are used, they just temporarily throw a hissy fit, destroy some property, and increase the costs to everyone. They won't get the ads taken down... and probably make it harder to actually do so by making the entire idea seem petty and childish.

It's theft from those who have supported the building of those public spaces, and those who will have to pay for the vandalism to be cleaned up.

leaving aside the various assertions, for which you provide no evidence, and with which i'm not going to waste my time, this issue all depends on how you look at it. for me the point is about control of public spaces. some people believe that only those with money, such as corporations, can use public spaces, which we all pay for, to express their ideas and put across their viewpoint and view of the world. some people think that something put into a public space, belongs to all of us to do as we please with; that those without money can express themselves and challenge the views of those with money.

That "brandalism" then goes and posts their videos on an internet that exists largely because of ads, on an ad funded video service, in a way that will get their videos embedded elsewhere (on ad funded websites) as an ad for the video service and the cause of brandalism ... is hilarious.

people have the choice to visit sites on the internet, which is rather different than the choice to leave one's house and walk around one's city.

[Kidlicious]

anyway, the point of things like brandalism is people organising themselves to change things they don't like or find objectionable in their communities, to use public spaces for public, rather than corporate expression and to ask questions about ownership and the imposition of values.

IT'S CALLED VANDALISM!

[Lorizael]

We live in a representative democracy. If you don't like the way some part of it functions, tell your representative. If that doesn't work, too bad; that's democracy in action.

[C0ckney]

I understand you are refusing to discuss it. Obviously because you have no answer to the question.

i just have a low tolerance for intellectual dishonesty.

Ad revenue increases the amount of money that can be spent on public spaces. Removing ads from public spaces thus decreases the amount of money that is available to spend on public spaces. How are you suggesting to make up the difference?

this is an improvement on your previous statement, and actually gives us something to work with. although i note that you don't say how much is actually paid for by ad revenue, which suggests you don't know, and this clearly limits the usefulness of the discussion. but let's imagine there was some shortfall, we are wealthy and we all want pleasant public spaces, so it doesn't take a lot of imagination to see how this could be achieved with the application of society's resources.

[C0ckney]

We live in a representative democracy. If you don't like the way some part of it functions, tell your representative. If that doesn't work, too bad; that's democracy in action.

that's your opinion and you're welcome to it. mine is different.

[Lorizael]

(You're gonna be all like, but MLK Jr! next. So to preempt that, when society prevents you from making your voice heard, it is reasonable for you to break the law to make your voice heard. But that's clearly not the case here. This is a simple disagreement about how to allocate a particular limited resource. To voice that disagreement, tell your ****ing representative.)

[Lorizael]

that's your opinion and you're welcome to it. mine is different.

It's my opinion that we live in a democracy? It's my opinion that democracy functions by petitioning the government? It's my opinion that when you hold a minority view, a democracy is not obliged to represent it (much)?

[Kidlicious]

If some punks throw a rock through your window it's their opinion that they did no wrong. So what?

[Bereta_Eder]

Depends who you are.
You could have been pinochet's right hand torturer and let out by a corrupt judiciary.

[Bereta_Eder]

It's my opinion that we live in a democracy? It's my opinion that democracy functions by petitioning the government? It's my opinion that when you hold a minority view, a democracy is not obliged to represent it (much)?

Then why do people hold strikes?
There's a wide array of actions that can be taken to influence.
Their moral standing can only be judged by a case to case study. (IMO)

[Lorizael]

You should specify whether you mean government workers striking or private workers striking. When private workers strike, that's simply a consequence of living in a free society. Generally, no laws are broken. Government workers striking is a whole other story and often cannot be justified.

[Sava]

EDIT 2: No, I'm not going to post a picture, because I don't depend on poly's judgement to decide whether or not I look good.

Or you could just because.... you know... we'd know what you look like.

Seems like you are overcompensating with this whole "I don't need Poly's judgment" thing.