Brixton news, rumour and general chat - March 2016

[ViolentPanda]

I don’t really understand why Dorling writes in the way he does. I have heard him interviewed and he says he want to provide reasoned argument- academic rigour- and that he would like to write a book that has a good go at neo liberal society. So he separates academic neutrality and politics.

So I agree he skirts around neo liberalism. Makes him a frustrating read sometimes. As he is good at assembling persuasive arguments.

Massey I haven’t read. What would u recommend?

"Spatial Divisions of Labour" is the "root" of her ideas, so that!

 

[Manter]

We have got 750 of our target 1,000 sleeping bags in 48 hours. Which is amazing. And heartwarming.

We have got 1,175 of our 1,000 target with 26 hours still to go.

People are great

 

[pesh]

it's got to be worth going into McDs with a big can of chrome and having at it just for the 'good graffiti' Vs 'bad graffiti' discussion between the management and the old bill.

 

[Gramsci]

And that's a bad thing?

Yes it is.

 

[SpamMisery]

Oh right, I'll note that down.

But I'm confused. Why would someone like that post when they are unable of see my posts due to mutual ignore? Very odd.

 

[stethoscope]

Oh right, I'll note that down.

But I'm confused. Why would someone like that post when they are unable of see my posts due to mutual ignore? Very odd.

Give it a rest.

 

[SpamMisery]

Curiouser and curiouser

 

[jakejb79]

Outrage over 'offensive' graffiti interior at Brixton McDonald's

 

[BigMoaner]

That for the most part isn't graffiti; it is tagging. And not only it is mega fugly to look at, but it is also a fucking vile practice completely devoid of any artistic merit. Shame on McDs.

We get people around our area doing huge tags on house walls. Its like waking up in the Bronx. So edgy. Cept its not. It looks shit. and drains council budgets clearing it that could be spent in a thousand different better ways.

 

[BigMoaner]

I am not that keen on tagging. As do not find it interesting to look at. But it has its followers. Why the Mcdonald use of it is so false. Tagging is about leaving ones individual mark outside the law. For those in the scene a tag makes known who did it. Its an act of bravado. Or a way in a society that is harsh to many - like US- to regain ones individuality by tagging at .

Can I come around and do a shit tag on your living room wall?

 

[BigMoaner]

Never been convinced by pro graffitti arguments. Its one mans need to express himself vs one mans Sunday morning spent scrubbing it off. Ideally tags it'd be done on gment buildings a d huge life controlling cooperations, rather than doris's front wall.

 

[boohoo]

Never been convinced by pro graffitti arguments. Its one mans need to express himself vs one mans Sunday morning spent scrubbing it off. Ideally tags it'd be done on gment buildings a d huge life controlling cooperations, rather than doris's front wall.

Would recommend watching Style Wars though - explains the back ground to tagging (basically another form of willy waving )

 

[editor]

I wonder what use will be made of this building next to PoW?

 

[editor]

This woman has a lovely voice. Anyone know her name?

Buskers of Brixton: the woman with the beautiful voice outside the supermarket

 

[Gramsci]

Never been convinced by pro graffitti arguments. Its one mans need to express himself vs one mans Sunday morning spent scrubbing it off. Ideally tags it'd be done on gment buildings a d huge life controlling cooperations, rather than doris's front wall.

Which is why I make a distinction between street art and tagging.

In New York a lot of tagging was of government owned things like the subway trains. Used to drive the authorities mad.

I notice in Brixton most of the tagging is of pretty dull buildings like above the underground station.

Street art often fails when authorities try to get in on act. As the infamous "Be Our Guest" on the railway bridge above Brixton road / Atlantic road junction.

Councils have different ways of dealing with it. In Westminster its zero tolerance. ie the Banksy one in Newman street.

Some Councils take the view of the hard line New York mayor and police. Who saw any form of "graffiti" as low level "crime" that if overlooked would bring on more major crimes. A contentious position I disagree with.

Over in Shoreditch "graffiti" or street art has been tolerated. But Shoreditch is now being transformed with expensive flats so wonder how long that will last.

One of the issues that street art/ tagging brings up is who the city is for.One view is that Cities were regarded as places that were anarchic and creative unlike being out in the sticks. The problem is that this can be incorporated in capitalism. ie this "creativity" is what makes Capitalism a dynamic system that leads to economic growth which trickles down to benefit all. "Doris" however ends up with her Council flat being regenerated and her moved on, her local service being cut.

In Shoreditch this is is ending up with hip entrepreneurs. Like the guy who writes for Evening Standard, Rohan Silva, and owns "Second Home"- off Brick Lane in Hanbury street. The new trendy Capitalism of networking. Socially liberal but when one sees Second Home I think its not for me or people I know. Its my problem with Pop. Its not the answer and it leaves the bread and butter issues of "Doris" sidelined. Even though they are in the end the real issues for the working class now and for Doris children.

So I am in mixed minds about this.

 

[BigMoaner]

I get the arguments for it in general, but there's also a hugely anti social side to it. It doesn't really coexist with peaceful living to deface someone's wall. You could say that doing a shit in someone's garden is two fingers up at property law, but its not very nice is it? Its not going to make life smooth. Some would see not a stark difference between shitting in someone's garden and a rubbish tag strewn over someone's garden wall.

Unless theses tagers are furthering the revolution to its conclusion where no one owns anything to deface?

 

[brixtonblade]

I wonder what use will be made of this building next to PoW?

View attachment 84411

Talking of buildings that have been empty a while.... nothing seems to be going on at Kaff. Weren't the landlords supposed to be doing something? Seems odd that they'd kick out a tenant and then leave the place empty.

 

[editor]

Talking of buildings that have been empty a while.... nothing seems to be going on at Kaff. Weren't the landlords supposed to be doing something? Seems odd that they'd kick out a tenant and then leave the place empty.

It's not just odd, it's disgraceful. They could have had upped the rent a reasonable amount on a short term lease and let Steve keep using the building. Instead it sits there useless and empty. The stupid greedy fuckers.

 

[tompound]

It's not just odd, it's disgraceful. They could have had upped the rent a reasonable amount on a short term lease and let Steve keep using the building. Instead it sits there useless and empty. The stupid greedy fuckers.

Getting on for a year now, makes no sense at all but that's the London property game for you.

 

[leanderman]

That's nothing: the recently-squatted showroom in Herne Hill has been shuttered for at least 18 years

 

[alcopop]

It's not just odd, it's disgraceful. They could have had upped the rent a reasonable amount on a short term lease and let Steve keep using the building. Instead it sits there useless and empty. The stupid greedy fuckers.

People have just moved in
Look through the window

 

[editor]

If it is a new cafe/bar taking over, it'll be interesting to see what the prices look like (prediction: sky high) and how they get on with the neighbours if they play music (prediction: not as well as Steve).

 

[Ms T]

The place opposite Kaff that used to be the African fashion shop has been empty for months too. There's stuff in there which makes me think it was destined to be a food outlet but nobody's done anything for ages.

 

[alcopop]

It's not just odd, it's disgraceful. They could have had upped the rent a reasonable amount on a short term lease and let Steve keep using the building. Instead it sits there useless and empty. The stupid greedy fuckers.

You make a lot of ad hominem attacks

for someone who complains a lot about being attacked ad hominemly

 

[ViolentPanda]

You make a lot of ad hominem attacks

for someone who complains a lot about being attacked ad hominemly

There's not a lot ad hominem about attacking landlords whose desire to make cash has cost them several months-worth of rent.

 

[editor]

You make a lot of ad hominem attacks

for someone who complains a lot about being attacked ad hominemly

I don't think you understand what ad hominem means.

But in case you're unsure, your last post is one, where you attack me rather than address the argument. The topic is the old Kaff cafe bar and its landlords, not me. I am attacking their position.

ad hominem
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

 

[teuchter]

An ad hominem attack would be one where the character or traits of a person is attacked, instead of an argument they are making.

If a hypothetical attacker were to call someone greedy or stupid, that would be an ad hominem attack.

If one were to make an attack on someone's argument instead, that someone would have had to have made an argument in the first place.

If someone takes an action or position, but makes no argument to defend or justify that action then surely the only possible way to criticise that action is by making an ad hominem attack on the person who has taken it.

That's not to say such an attack is necessarily unjustified, rather it demonstrates why blanket rules like "no ad hominem attacks" are rather blunt because they are likely to outlaw things unintended by the rulemakers, with the result that they are selectively enforced and become somewhat meaningless.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

The concept of an ad hominem only makes sense in the context of a debate of some sort. If someone isn't doing that, as in the case of editor slagging off the landlords above, it's a total irrelevance.

 

[editor]

The concept of an ad hominem only makes sense in the context of a debate of some sort. If someone isn't doing that, as in the case of editor slagging off the landlords above, it's a total irrelevance.

Indeed. That is correct. And now that we've settled that, I'd be obliged if people got back to discussing Brixton matters.
If anyone wants to debate the subtleties of 'ad hominems', please start a thread in an appropriate forum. Thank you.

 

[teuchter]

The concept of an ad hominem only makes sense in the context of a debate of some sort. If someone isn't doing that, as in the case of editor slagging off the landlords above, it's a total irrelevance.

My impression is that we are frequently told that this is supposed to be a forum for debate rather than slagging people off.