I also hate 99% of grafittis because most are just a big autofellatio, wasting even more space than tags but equally pointless. I don't give a shit what's your stupid nickname, draw/write something cool you idiot.

  • GothWhitlam [he/him]
    ·
    4 years ago

    Our trains are full of adds, on almost every surface. I'd prefer the tags to the ads and double that for tags on ads.

    Ads are junk, they provide nothing to us, and for our subsidised and still 'private' rail companies they just add more to private pockets.

    Edit: spelling

      • GothWhitlam [he/him]
        ·
        4 years ago

        It's an interesting point your trying to make there. As I said, our transport system has been privatised, but at the same time is heavily subsidised by the state, to the point that it would be cheaper for the state to collect fairs and run the system (which we can't do now apparently because it would interfere with the free market).

        This might be different elsewhere, but here in Australia most public transport has subsided the loss and provitised the profits. These ads do not contribute to the running of the transport, they simply turn profit for the owners of the trains. It has nothing to do with "not run without profit".

        Saying that tags and ads are on the same level is an interesting argument given that information. Assuming they are both 'bad' (which I don't), one of these bad things profits a multinational corporation and is an eyesore, the other may simply be considered an eyesore (again, not my opinion).

        Tags are never as bad as advertising, and are absolutely reclamation of public space from corporations.

        TL;DR Trains good, cars bad, tags good, advertising bad.

          • GothWhitlam [he/him]
            ·
            4 years ago

            I can see where you're coming from, but I think we're having a fundamentally different view of what a tag is doing.

            You continue to use words like 'destroy' - it is clear that you feel tags somehow reduce the function of public transport, which I don't think they do.

            In the case of graffiti, whether tags or not, my argument is they have as much of a right to be there as advertisements. I don't see them as an eyesore, but even if they were they are equally valid as the ads on the wall, posts, and backs of seats.

            As you mentioned, without going in to specific examples of public transport the argument as to whether the profit goes to improving the service is valid, but I can only say from experience (working in state government) that the profits from ours go nowhere but the pockets of the corporate owners. The state pays for everything, and it's a well known rort.

            Clearly were at loggerheads. I believe tags are valid, good and cause no harm to the train, and are certainly more valid than the ads and have a place there. I also like how tags look. You don't like how they look, and therefore believe they should be gone. There is really nothing I can say to convince you, and that's ok. This probs shouldn't be the biggest cause for division on the website.