[sircastor]

But that cost is not paid by the person creating the graffiti. The owner has a cost forced on them.

The aesthetic argument here is trying to validate a violent act. A lot of graffiti is beautiful, but that doesn’t mean it’s okay.

[complaintdept]

What violent act?

[tsimionescu]

Modifying someone else's property, or public property, without consent.

[TallTales]

This is a fascinating comment. How would you define violence?

[usrusr]

If I smash your car, is that violence or not? What if I take care to smash your car only so much that it will still be able carry you to work and back?

[mavhc]

What if I apply a protective coating to an unprotected wall, using my own money to supply the materials?

[usrusr]

Same as adjusting other people's tire pressure: perfectly fine if you have explicit approval.

[amenhotep]

Not. Was this supposed to be a hard question?

[helboi4]

They definitely have a very hyper-capitalist definition of violence. It's sort of pathetic how much people somehow care about the property of the ruling classes that they will never own.

[rep_lodsb]

As opposed to people who define words written on the internet and not even directed at a specific person as "violence"?

[wolverine876]

What are you referring to? I don't see that in this discussion.

[helboi4]

I never said anything like that so why are you implying that I am? Nice strawman bro, I'm not crying over things people say to me on the internet. Anyone who sees a mean comment on the internet that doesn't actually threaten or incite violence as violence is just as pathetic as people who think art they don't like on a wall is violence. Can you please argue against points I actually made, thank you.

[tsimionescu]

I am not at all a hyper capitalist. I would even consider myself anti-capitalist.

But imposing your own preferred art on public commons is a (minor) form of violence, in any economic system. Especially when you do so with paints of questionable chemical composition, or with images/text that is likely to offend.

I would also say that doing the same thing even on your own property can be reprehensible, as long as it is visible to the public. Just because you own a house doesn't mean you should be able to make it look however you want on the outside, especially not in ways that are actively unpleasant to those of us that need to walk by it every day: we the public should have a say in how your private property looks. A most anti-capitalist position.

[helboi4]

Think about it this way, if we all owned all public structures, then we all have equal rights to paint it just as much as you have the right to paint your own house. The graffiti artist has the right to paint it, you have the right to hate it. You have the right to paint something they hate, or paint over their stuff. Nobody should be being prosecuted by a higher power for a minor disagreement about artistic taste. Unless someone is full on painting swastika-ridden explicitly racist murals or sth of that nature, it's not violent. The only reason the ruling class wants you to think it's violent is because property is important to them as a source of power, and therefore must be god above all under this system.

[fragmede]

not op but violence is traditionally defined as physical force to cause harm. but now there's financial violence and social media violence and here the message in the graffiti causes harm. eg die techy scum. it's not physically violent, but some think it's helpful to frame it as a non-physical violent act because of the expression of dislike for a particular community. it doesn't cause any grave harm, but everyone who walks by and sees it is affected by it.

[tsimionescu]

Violence has always extended beyond pure physical force. Calling someone a slur to their face, or spitting in their food, or defacing their clothes or home (especially with hateful symbols) would be recognized as forms of violence at many times in history way before modern times. Holding someone at knife or gun point is also very clearly a violent act.