03-17-2023, 10:42 PM
(03-17-2023, 08:09 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: I was referring to our current discourse and policy around tagging namely erasing and trying to eliminate it by force and persistence without regard for the reasons why it happens.
I am trying to be empathetic to how people in that position feel and relate to the broader community.
Someone tagging, no matter how primal and base it is, is expressing themselves. We may disagree with the method and message but that’s what it is. My opinion is that they likely don’t have another way to feel hear or express themselves in our broader community. Hence they may feel excluded. By erasing their tag that is silencing and erasing their message which I’d argue is oppressive. And being angry about tagging (as I am) is antagonistic.
Or at least my thinking on it.
Thanks, I appreciate the perspective. It’s the sort of consideration that needs to be included when considering how to respond to a crime problem — it’s more than just finding and punishing the specific offenders or “offenders”.
However, I have to say that I think using the word “oppression” to refer to painting over graffiti is insulting to the victims of actual oppression. I just can’t see it as “oppressive” for a property owner to maintain their property. It might feel oppressive to the person who made the mark, but that doesn’t mean that it actually is oppressive.