Anti HRO Vandalism in Jacksonville's Five Points Area
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/HRO-Madness/i-mhvmf27/0/L/13179185_10156887789040230_5682095282169431227_n-1-L.jpg)
A construction worker was fired today for vandalizing the site that his company was working to renovate in the heart of Five Points, Jville's most LGBT friendly neighborhood. The man vandalized a public art project sponsored by the owner of the building, arts advocate Steve Williams, crossing over its transfriendly message. Fortunately the whole episode was caught on cell phone video. Check out the details after the jump.
Read More: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2016-may-anti-hro-vandalism-in-jacksonvilles-five-points-area
https://www.youtube.com/v/3P_qbaYvk_Q
For those of you who are on bathroom bandwagon, as well-intentioned as you are, you're not protecting your children. You are demanding that police determine a person's gender before they use a particular bathroom.
In this video, a MALE cop or security guard enters the WOMEN'S restroom and demands that a user of that bathroom prove their gender.
This weird bathroom movement, I believe, will absolutely lead to egregious abuses of power. Don't be surprised when you hear more than a few "drop your pants and prove it..." stories as a result.
I personally do not want to live in an environment where my children will be asked to prove their gender by a stranger in an authoritative uniform. I consider that an absolute intrusion into an individual's right to privacy - the fourth amendment.
Conservatives argue that stricter gun laws won't stop shootings.... yet they seem to think stricter bathroom laws will stop sex crimes.
Yeah, I don't get it either.
We certainly live in interesting times. I understand from Steve that plans are being made to fix the mural or otherwise get it respectable-looking before 5/21. The artists have said on social media they'll fix it much sooner.
Another brick in the #wallgate saga.
One good move lately has been the recent fact sheet of bathroom access rights by the EEOC. Hopefully trans/gender non-conforming people can crap at work in peace.
https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/fs-bathroom-access-transgender.cfm
^^ The EEOC has been awesome about this. So has the Dept of Education. Locally, our public school kids can crap in peace. And thanks to new regulations put in place this year, our city workers, too, can use the restroom without fear.
Work to do for everyone else, though. Except for Target shoppers. They can use the bathroom. But watch out for pervy straight men near the dressing rooms, ladies.
Calling it a mural is a bit of a stretch, but ok...
I take it that it is no longer a free graffiti wall..?
It wasn't going to be. Steve Williams said he wanted to keep the message - that's a better word than mural, but I don't know art - up for the foreseeable future.
I assume it will return to free art space again soon enough.
The artists are creating something more permanent at the JASMYN campus.
Mural
Pronunciation: /ˈmjʊər(ə)l/
A painting or other work of art executed directly on a wall.
(http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/mural (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/mural))
Sure seems like a mural to me.
I leave these things to the experts. Thanks, Adam.
Quote from: Jimmy on May 04, 2016, 04:18:23 PM
I leave these things to the experts. Thanks, Adam.
It's intellectually lazy to rely on a dictionary definition to (attempt to) settle an argument. But hey... I'm intellectually lazy.
I agree 'message' would be more accurate, but not as powerful as 'mural' for purposes of outrage.
More curiosity stems from whether this is vandalism by law, or an unwanted, obtuse opinion, by local standards.
Quote from: AKIRA on May 04, 2016, 04:29:07 PM
I agree 'message' would be more accurate, but not as powerful as 'mural' for purposes of outrage.
More curiosity stems from whether this is vandalism by law, or an unwanted, obtuse opinion, by local standards.
A message can be art. Of course, you come across as the kind of person who tries to define what constitutes 'art'.
I don't quite follow the latter part of your post. I think it's vandalism - in the same way I think any graffiti is vandalism. That doesn't mean that the vandalism isn't art, mind, but it's vandalism nevertheless. And vandalism can be vandalism and still express an opinion - whether that opinion is popular or not.
QuoteI agree 'message' would be more accurate, but not as powerful as 'mural' for purposes of outrage.
More curiosity stems from whether this is vandalism by law, or an unwanted, obtuse opinion, by local standards.
There's no reason it can't be both.
vandalism |ˈvandlˌizəm|
noun
action involving deliberate destruction of or damage to public or private property.
It was deliberate. It did damage. It was private property. We have a winner on at least one account.
Quote from: stephendare on May 04, 2016, 05:08:58 PM
Quote from: Adam White on May 04, 2016, 04:57:12 PM
Quote from: AKIRA on May 04, 2016, 04:29:07 PM
I agree 'message' would be more accurate, but not as powerful as 'mural' for purposes of outrage.
More curiosity stems from whether this is vandalism by law, or an unwanted, obtuse opinion, by local standards.
A message can be art. Of course, you come across as the kind of person who tries to define what constitutes 'art'.
I don't quite follow the latter part of your post. I think it's vandalism - in the same way I think any graffiti is vandalism. That doesn't mean that the vandalism isn't art, mind, but it's vandalism nevertheless. And vandalism can be vandalism and still express an opinion - whether that opinion is popular or not.
Akira is actually a very very talented painter. Perhaps one of the ten most important painters in the area, (no exaggeration) I think the political slant might be coloring what is basically a bit of art snobbery. ;)
Well, if that is the case (and I have no reason to doubt you), surely he understands that vandalism and art aren't mutually-exclusive catagories.
Can you vandalize vandalism? ???
Who uses which bathroom is kind of..whatever..ok.
What should be writ in stone should be:
-wash your damn hands humans.
-flush the commode you heathens.
-no whistling or loudly humming any tune at any time.
-please do not stop in front of my stall while wearing large clown shoes and giggling menacingly at Joker Joe's Truck Stop at 3:15am...just stop.
I can report that the mural/message has been restored to its pristine and awesome conduction. Nicole and Martin have restored it.
Quote from: TheCat on May 04, 2016, 02:09:20 PM
https://www.youtube.com/v/3P_qbaYvk_Q
For those of you who are on bathroom bandwagon, as well-intentioned as you are, you're not protecting your children. You are demanding that police determine a person's gender before they use a particular bathroom.
In this video, a MALE cop or security guard enters the WOMEN'S restroom and demands that a user of that bathroom prove their gender.
This weird bathroom movement, I believe, will absolutely lead to egregious abuses of power. Don't be surprised when you hear more than a few "drop your pants and prove it..." stories as a result.
I personally do not want to live in an environment where my children will be asked to prove their gender by a stranger in an authoritative uniform. I consider that an absolute intrusion into an individual's right to privacy - the fourth amendment.
Soooo much cognitive dissonance in that last sentence...
Keeping in mind events like the 9 yo girl nearly killed by the man in a BestBuy (female) restroom a couple years ago, it will be a tricky game figuring out who "legitimately" belongs in the restroom and who does not...
Quote from: AKIRA on May 06, 2016, 02:40:57 AM
Keeping in mind events like the 9 yo girl nearly killed by the man in a BestBuy (female) restroom a couple years ago, it will be a tricky game figuring out who "legitimately" belongs in the restroom and who does not...
Kind of like driving a car. We all assume that other drivers on the road are properly licensed.
Why don't we just make all bathroom unisex? I mean, with the stalls, you can't see anything really. We should just put full stalls around the urinals and make all appliances enclosed and make all bathrooms unisex. I can't remember the last time I was in a restroom and saw another dude's schlong, it's not like a locker room...
And as far as kids getting hurt by adults - well, there are as many female adult wackos out there as there are male so how about just don't let your young kids go into public restrooms alone?
Quote from: stephendare on May 06, 2016, 09:30:05 AM
Quote from: FlaBoy on May 06, 2016, 09:24:47 AM
Quote from: Adam White on May 06, 2016, 09:11:10 AM
Quote from: FlaBoy on May 06, 2016, 09:00:50 AM
Quote from: Adam White on May 05, 2016, 01:08:55 AM
Quote from: FlaBoy on May 04, 2016, 06:18:18 PM
Can you vandalize vandalism? ???
Yes.
How?
By vandalizing it.
Isn't it all just vandalism? A guy lost his job over this?
Are you under the impression that a public art piece is 'vandalism'?
And if so, exactly how did you pass your bar exam?
Even if it were (in this case, it clearly wasn't), that doesn't mean that it isn't art. Vandalism can be art. And vandalism of art can be art.
Quote from: stephendare on May 06, 2016, 09:45:22 AM
Quote from: Adam White on May 06, 2016, 09:33:16 AM
Quote from: stephendare on May 06, 2016, 09:30:05 AM
Quote from: FlaBoy on May 06, 2016, 09:24:47 AM
Quote from: Adam White on May 06, 2016, 09:11:10 AM
Quote from: FlaBoy on May 06, 2016, 09:00:50 AM
Quote from: Adam White on May 05, 2016, 01:08:55 AM
Quote from: FlaBoy on May 04, 2016, 06:18:18 PM
Can you vandalize vandalism? ???
Yes.
How?
By vandalizing it.
Isn't it all just vandalism? A guy lost his job over this?
Are you under the impression that a public art piece is 'vandalism'?
And if so, exactly how did you pass your bar exam?
Even if it were (in this case, it clearly wasn't), that doesn't mean that it isn't art. Vandalism can be art. And vandalism of art can be art.
I dont disagree, just addressing the underlying absurdity.
Even if the wall had still been a designated public art piece, (which it was for a couple of weeks) the wall, and various graffiti wasn't 'vandalism'. Its a fundamentally inane argument.
In reality land, the wall was no longer a free public art space, due to the city interfering in that project.
Both the original free space, and the mural were done with the express permission of the property owner, which is pretty much the literal opposite of the definition of vandalism. And Flaboy, as an attorney in waiting should know this basic distinction. How can you legally know when something is legal seems to be the more operative question here.
LOL. Was it done with the consent of the owner of the property originally?
Quote from: stephendare on May 06, 2016, 09:45:22 AM
I dont disagree, just addressing the underlying absurdity.
Even if the wall had still been a designated public art piece, (which it was for a couple of weeks) the wall, and various graffiti wasn't 'vandalism'. Its a fundamentally inane argument.
In reality land, the wall was no longer a free public art space, due to the city interfering in that project.
Both the original free space, and the mural were done with the express permission of the property owner, which is pretty much the literal opposite of the definition of vandalism. And Flaboy, as an attorney in waiting should know this basic distinction. How can you legally know when something is legal seems to be the more operative question here.
Yeah, I wasn't disagreeing with you. I figured you got that, too. I was just piling on!
Quote from: FlaBoy on May 06, 2016, 09:50:00 AM
LOL. Was it done with the consent of the owner of the property originally?
The article says it was.
"The man vandalized a public art project sponsored by the owner of the building, arts advocate Steve Williams"
Quote from: Bewler on May 06, 2016, 11:04:18 AM
Quote from: FlaBoy on May 06, 2016, 09:50:00 AM
LOL. Was it done with the consent of the owner of the property originally?
The article says it was.
"The man vandalized a public art project sponsored by the owner of the building, arts advocate Steve Williams"
Stop confusing us with the facts!
Quote from: Adam White on May 06, 2016, 11:10:07 AM
Quote from: Bewler on May 06, 2016, 11:04:18 AM
Quote from: FlaBoy on May 06, 2016, 09:50:00 AM
LOL. Was it done with the consent of the owner of the property originally?
The article says it was.
"The man vandalized a public art project sponsored by the owner of the building, arts advocate Steve Williams"
Stop confusing us with the facts!
Well I'm not saying it definitively is a fact, I'm just going by what the article says and assuming its accurate. It's entirely possible the construction worker who crossed out the message didn't know the owner endorsed the message or that it was supposed to be an artistic "mural" or whatever and he's looking at it like its a bathroom wall scribble.
But regardless of whether or not he knew this, it was still idiotic of him to do that to a building he was hired to work on. He could have spray painted something benign like "I enjoy cake" and still have gotten fired over it.
And if he DID know the owner supported the message, then it was exponentially more idiotic. Unless he just didn't care that much about his job.
Quote from: Bewler on May 06, 2016, 11:33:42 AM
Quote from: Adam White on May 06, 2016, 11:10:07 AM
Quote from: Bewler on May 06, 2016, 11:04:18 AM
Quote from: FlaBoy on May 06, 2016, 09:50:00 AM
LOL. Was it done with the consent of the owner of the property originally?
The article says it was.
"The man vandalized a public art project sponsored by the owner of the building, arts advocate Steve Williams"
Stop confusing us with the facts!
Well I'm not saying it definitively is a fact, I'm just going by what the article says and assuming its accurate. It's entirely possible the construction worker who crossed out the message didn't know the owner endorsed the message or that it was supposed to be an artistic "mural" or whatever and he's looking at it like its a bathroom wall scribble.
But regardless of whether or not he knew this, it was still idiotic of him to do that to a building he was hired to work on. He could have spray painted something benign like "I enjoy cake" and still have gotten fired over it.
And if he DID know the owner supported the message, then it was exponentially more idiotic. Unless he just didn't care that much about his job.
I agree.
Quote from: Adam White on May 06, 2016, 11:44:34 AM
Quote from: Bewler on May 06, 2016, 11:33:42 AM
Quote from: Adam White on May 06, 2016, 11:10:07 AM
Quote from: Bewler on May 06, 2016, 11:04:18 AM
Quote from: FlaBoy on May 06, 2016, 09:50:00 AM
LOL. Was it done with the consent of the owner of the property originally?
The article says it was.
"The man vandalized a public art project sponsored by the owner of the building, arts advocate Steve Williams"
Stop confusing us with the facts!
Well I'm not saying it definitively is a fact, I'm just going by what the article says and assuming its accurate. It's entirely possible the construction worker who crossed out the message didn't know the owner endorsed the message or that it was supposed to be an artistic "mural" or whatever and he's looking at it like its a bathroom wall scribble.
But regardless of whether or not he knew this, it was still idiotic of him to do that to a building he was hired to work on. He could have spray painted something benign like "I enjoy cake" and still have gotten fired over it.
And if he DID know the owner supported the message, then it was exponentially more idiotic. Unless he just didn't care that much about his job.
I agree.
If it was done with the consent of the owner, then it was completely justified to fire him.
Quote from: stephendare on May 06, 2016, 09:36:26 AM
Quote from: AKIRA on May 06, 2016, 02:40:57 AM
Keeping in mind events like the 9 yo girl nearly killed by the man in a BestBuy (female) restroom a couple years ago, it will be a tricky game figuring out who "legitimately" belongs in the restroom and who does not...
Does this kind of thinking extend to other situations? Like, if we keep in mind the number of sexual assaults committed by policemen against females around the country, should we ban male cops from making traffic stops? Or arrests?
(everything I say here is in expectation that an actually conversation can be had, instead of simply posting a unified political front for the current cause celebre. My interest is not in the morality of it, but instead the legal form it takes)
I am so glad you asked. The answer is yes, it does extend to other things.
There are people who indeed believe (government) police should be banned for just such reasons, such as anarchists/voluntaryists. Copblock is a prime example. Clearly, that will never happen in any of our lifetimes, without some kind of apocalypse scenario. What most people do demand is greater regulation, both in recruiting police and keeping after them throughout their careers. Standards are laid out, boards and hearings are created and action is taken to reduce future harm. So yes, it is similar, but not the reductio ad absurdum you take it. It is similar in the need for some sort of way to determine legitimacy to prevent predators, as some police are, from having a field day.
Even Adam's point has validity in the same way, but he forgets that every vehicle has a tag that legitimizes the vehicle for use on the roads, requiring it to be registered and insured. Also, the DL he assumes the drivers to have is listed on the same screen that police free access when running tags, which is why your tag is visible to traffic and not hidden. There is more than "hope" involved.
A much better example would be the fiasco with service animals and 2nd Amendment activists.
First, services animals.
The ADA stipulates that a person can take their service animal; pretty much anywhere, regardless of kind of animal (highly trained and expensive dogs, pythons, Shetland ponies, etc). If a business denies access, a $50,000 fines would be issued the business, of which a portion can go to the person denied. Sounds simply so far... Problems begin with people lying about their animal actually being a SA, and not some untrained, stinky mutt that found roaming around. Since only two questions can be legally asked, "is that a service animal and what service does it provide", it is very difficult to determine any truth to the claim. Furthermore, the person does not have to provide any paperwork or certification for their claim. I've seen a few people who would go to a business, with a true service animals, cause a ruckus or problem and then be told to leave. They would immediately file a claim with the feds in hope that the business would be fined for expelling them for having a SA. The worst was a lady with a SA she would never wash so it would be super smelly, in hopes that a business would kick her out due to the impossibly bad odor. When you see her again in court, the dog would be clean and she would have her hand out for her cash from the fine...
Second, the 2nd Amendment activist.
In Florida, there is a law that allows open carry when got to or from hunting, camping and fishing. As a result, a local gun rights nut would walk down San Jose near the various bridges with a fishing pole and a shotgun scaring local folk. Do you need a shot gun when fishing off a bridge in Mandarin..? No. Is it legal to have one (or an AR, hunting rifles, etc) strapped to your back while doing such or walking to do such, even when frightening people? Yep. Can police demand ID from someone in such a circumstance? No. For that matter, would also be potentially legal to walk past Fishweir Elementary multiple times doing the same, with multiple weapons in the middle of the school day. You can see how a law to allow people recreational opportunities has, at times, turned into a silly fiasco by people abusing the spirit of that law. Refer to Youtube for examples.
To conclude, SA laws are very much needed, but badly written and allow too much abuse. The 2nd Amendment is a basic right, but is not immune from abuse by people with ulterior motives.
Laws that create and assure freedom have a responsibility to be written in a way that also takes in account the unintentional trouble they can cause. Checks and balances, if you will.
There lays my concern about how to determine legitimacy in restroom attendance. How to create maximum freedom and limit abuse, for which the propensity is already established, is the question that I don't know if there can be an answer in this case...
Quote from: AKIRA on May 06, 2016, 04:42:03 PM
Even Adam's point has validity in the same way, but he forgets that every vehicle has a tag that legitimizes the vehicle for use on the roads, requiring it to be registered and insured. Also, the DL he assumes the drivers to have is listed on the same screen that police free access when running tags, which is why your tag is visible to traffic and not hidden. There is more than "hope" involved.
Not cars, drivers.
Every restroom (or most, at least) has a sign designating it as a men's room or a ladies' room.
Every car may have a tag, but that tag doesn't necessarily say anything about the driver.
In my HUMBLE opinion , that wasn't "Art " . It was simply a message . That being said, the guy was an idiot but does he really need to lose his job over it ? Is that going to make him more open minded towards trans folks now ? Wouldn't it have been more productive to TALK to him , maybe explain the message ? You cant change an asshole by acting like one yourself . Its intolerance , just like his action was .
Quote from: johncb on May 06, 2016, 07:59:16 PM
In my HUMBLE opinion , that wasn't "Art " . It was simply a message . That being said, the guy was an idiot but does he really need to lose his job over it ? Is that going to make him more open minded towards trans folks now ? Wouldn't it have been more productive to TALK to him , maybe explain the message ? You cant change an asshole by acting like one yourself . Its intolerance , just like his action was .
Is this art?
(http://www.phaidon.com/resource/fountain.jpg)
Quote from: stephendare on May 06, 2016, 09:36:26 AM
Does this kind of thinking extend to other situations? Like, if we keep in mind the number of sexual assaults committed by policemen against females around the country, should we ban male cops from making traffic stops? Or arrests?
::) ::) ::)
Transgender 0.3% of the population = The plight of the century! ;)
Honestly, lets just go all unisex with stalls so we can put this to rest. Or better yet bring back the single outhouse, or what my grandpa called "the shit hole" (as in a hole you put shit in). Easy peasy.
Quote from: peestandingup on May 09, 2016, 11:58:15 PM
Transgender 0.3% of the population = The plight of the century! ;)
Well, it's a burden for them.
That's the way civil rights work. If we only worried about civil rights when it became a burden for the majority, there would be no civil rights at all for minority groups.