Beautiful and disgusting at the same time.

It’s vandalizing public property in the same way that human shit vandalizes a lot of public property in SF. I don’t know which one is worse. One can be beautiful, the other is done because he has no choice.

For graffiti I’m in support of lashing or whipping the people that do this. It’s effective in Singapore. But then we lose all this great public art.

▲

direwolf20 21 hours ago | parent [-]

If they're not covering windows, signs or art, what is being vandalized? A blank slab of concrete performs its function equally well no matter the color.

▲

toephu2 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

A 'blank slab of concrete' isn't just a structural element; it’s a signal of stewardship. When you ignore tagging on that slab, you create a permission structure for more intrusive vandalism. It’s the 'Broken Windows' theory in practice: tagging leads to broken glass, which leads to copper theft, because the physical environment signals that the space is unmonitored and ownership is absent.

High-trust societies rely on the shared maintenance of the commons. If the community can't even agree to keep a wall clean, it’s a leading indicator that the city has lost the ability to enforce the social contract on larger issues.

Sadly this is partly why SF will never be a high-trust society.

	▲	direwolf20 25 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		The broken windows theory says that broken windows leads to more broken windows. Is there evidence that graffiti leads to broken windows outside of a context where it implies a building is abandoned?

▲

toephu2 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Most graffiti is just tagging, scribbling their name on something. I do not consider this art. It makes the environment you live in lease appealing (looks more ghetto).

▲

threethirtytwo 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Bro a lot of these aren’t beautiful quotes. Gang signs, immature shit from kids who do most of this stuff. Some is beautiful art most someone just signed their name.

▲

Ylpertnodi 18 hours ago | parent | next [-]

At what age would you suggest whipping or lashing kids?

Would you personally be prepared to do it? Or, the owners of the property

Should it be public lashings, or pay-per-view, or witnessed only by a select group of people, you place your trust in?

If it's a caught female, can men whip her?

How would you phrase the job application?

I see a few flaws in your idea. Does Singapore still not allow males with long hair?

	▲	threethirtytwo 16 hours ago \| parent [-]
		In Asia it’s done as young as 5. Maybe that’s why they’re ahead. > If it's a caught female, can men whip her? Yes. Men and women are equal. Your question implies you are sexism. Do you believe women are superior to men? > How would you phrase the job application? Whatever term they use in Singapore. > I see a few flaws in your idea. Does Singapore still not allow males with long hair? There’s tradeoffs for either idea. San Francisco is covered with human shit while Singapore isn’t and you can get whipped for shitting in the streets. Remarkably in both systems not very many people get whipped. Nearly zero. Because the possible consequence is what enforces the rule, not the actual consequence itself. As long as people know they will be whipped, they then act in ways that will prevent the whipping from happening. In the beginning a few people will be whipped but that number will drop dramatically very shortly.

▲

direwolf20 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You didn't answer the question.

	▲	threethirtytwo 16 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The failure is in your own comment.