The Mystery of Fashion

[Kidlicious]

There's a strong argument to be made for exploitation at least, if not outright misogyny. These magazines have pages and pages dedicated to convincing women that they need to spend outrageous amounts of cash on grotesquely impractical clothing, then spend an hour every morning putting on complex combinations of makeup, or they'll look ugly or dowdy.

Is that any different from what corporations do to us all constantly? I get pretty sick of hearing about how I have Low T, not enough erections etc.. Just because they exploit women that doesn't make it misogyny. They are doing it for money.

[Bereta_Eder]

Wrong pants colour. Otherwise fine (for '30s swing music parties)

[C0ckney]

In any case, freedom of speech protects advertisers and their right to post their messages where they want to, if they've paid for the space.

Banksy is against free speech. Not surprising for someone who also doesn't respect property rights.

no one, apart from sava, wants to ban advertising; advertisers can do what they like. however, people who want to reclaim their public spaces can also do what they like. it's called freedom.

here's an example of what i'm talking about.

we are the city

Over two days, across 10 British cities, 365 corporate ad spaces were taken over by original, handmade artworks crafted by 40 artists. Most of us didn’t have much experience of this kind of thing before, but we shared a desire for public space free from visual pollution and from cultural values that promote and exploit impossible bodies, wreck the climate through constant consumerism, fuel debt and normalize inequality, both global and local. We weren’t having any of it. So, we got organized, we got tooled up, and on the weekend of 10 and 11 of May – with specially printed orange high-visibility vests – we took to the streets and unlocked these expensive, ubiquitous, privatized spaces and commoned them with our own ideas and images.

[Aeson]

You do realize those public spaces are probably paid for at least in part by the ad space? Do you really think it would be better for people to stand in the rain while waiting for a bus than to have a seat in a covered area and happen to see an advertisement?

[C0ckney]

Do you really think it would be better for people to stand in the rain while waiting for a bus than to have a seat in a covered area and happen to see an advertisement?

do you believe in false dichotomies?

[Al B. Sure!]

Drop the tie clip and buy a hat with medium-wide medium-soft brim.

No.

[onodera]

That's why I told you which brim to look for.

[Aeson]

do you believe in false dichotomies?

I don't see your video where you build a new bus stop that doesn't need ad revenue to support it... All I see you supporting is destruction of property and waste of resources ...

[C0ckney]

you have started with a false premise, that without ad revenue there would be no bus stops, and then expect me to debate with you based on that. obviously that's not going to happen.

[Aeson]

you have started with a false premise, that without ad revenue there would be no bus stops, and then expect me to debate with you based on that. obviously that's not going to happen.

So you are suggesting that money will magically appear to replace "found" money forgone? How do you propose to fund the shortfall?

[C0ckney]

So you are suggesting that money will magically appear to replace "found" money forgone? How do you propose to fund the shortfall?

you have started with a false premise, that without ad revenue there would be no bus stops, and then expect me to debate with you based on that. obviously that's not going to happen.

[C0ckney]

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.

[Aeson]

I'm still waiting for you to describe how to pay for the shortfall caused by removing ads from public spaces.

[Aeson]

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.

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.

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.

[C0ckney]

I'm still waiting for you to describe how to pay for the shortfall caused by removing ads from public spaces.

i really don't know how much more simply i can put my refusal to debate based on your false premise. i'm fairly sure that crayons don't work online.