> More power to him!
Do you really think damaging property belonging to other people is justified by bad grammar?
Do you really think damaging property belonging to other people is justified by bad grammar?
It's the tagging that's a real eye sore. The same thing over and over again with no artistic merit.
And people saying they're ok with graffiti and vandalism are really saying that they're ok with other people's property to be graffitied and vandalised, not their own.
> Graffiti happens at the intersection of ambition and incompetence: people want to make their mark on the world, but have no other way to do it than literally making a mark on the world.
We don't think it's ok for people to "paint or sticker or everything they want", we think this is particular type of alteration is ok.
At an extreme if Banskey wanted to graffity something of mine I'd be incredibly happy so this is just plain incorrect.
Probably not big on people tagging my stuff, but this is not what you are implying.
Visual pollution is a thing, as you seem to agree since to you graffiti is vandalism (compared to invasion of property rights for instance), but by this standard why does a business owner get to then visually pollute outside of their property?
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
Fixed punctuation.
For me, bad spelling and obviously bad grammar are like fingernails on a blackboard.
Like a learner's screeching violin to someone with perfect pitch.