Might be moving to South London. Any neighbourhoods you'd recommend? Any to avoid? Good locations for intrepid pioneers? Want a garden and three-bedrooms for about 250k.
Yeah, I know. That's why I'm looking for advice on here.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
That's in Canada. Thanks, though.
Posted by Bandy (Member # 12) on :
quote:Originally posted by Black Mask: Hey.
Brief post, I'm at work.
Might be moving to South London. Any neighbourhoods you'd recommend? Any to avoid? Good locations for intrepid pioneers? Want a garden and three-bedrooms for about 250k.
Yeah, I know. That's why I'm looking for advice on here.
Hello. I'd wholeheartedly recommend the borough of Wandsworth. Here are some Wandsworth facts:
1) It has the lowest council tax in the country for each band 2) Like Indian food? Well you'll love Tooting - it's South London curry hotspot and home to the largest Sri Lankan population in Europe. 3) Time Out voted it the "Zeitgeistiest" area of London, with the largest population of forward thikers in the capital. 4) Home to TMO greats such as Bandy, Scrawny and - previously - Carter. And someone else too. Bill Oddie perhaps? I forget. 5) Lots of lovely areas to choose from - Balham, Tooting, Wandsworth Common, Wandsworth Town. 6) Lots of good pubs and restaurants 7) Plenty of open green space with 3 (three) parks within walking distance of my flat.
Wandsworth. Yeah!
Posted by Gemini (Member # 428) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bandy: 5) Lots of lovely areas to choose from - Balham, Tooting, Wandsworth Common, Wandsworth Town.
Not if he wants a garden and three-bedrooms for about 250k there isn't.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Balham. Yes. I went to a wedding at a Polish club in Balham, I believe.
Posted by Gemini (Member # 428) on :
BM I live in a 2 bedroom flat in Balham, it's not even particularly big and has no garden and it costs 250K. However Balham is lovely and an area I would recommend.
Posted by Bandy (Member # 12) on :
I reckon you'd find something in that price bracket in Tooting Broadway or Wandsworth Town and you're not too desperate to live within 5 minutes of a tube.
[ 15.03.2005, 05:09: Message edited by: Bandy ]
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
quote:Originally posted by Black Mask: That's in Canada. Thanks, though.
You asked for South London...
Perherpes you could use the americanization "London, England" to avoid future confusion.
Is there an Eiffel Tower in Paris, Texas?
Is the Bull Ring in Birmingham, Alabamuh?
I know the world is a big place, but you'd think we could find a different name for everywhere.
Posted by Bandy (Member # 12) on :
We look again to Bandy as a lingo trend setter - was he not, after all, the one who invented the interweb?
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Excellent. Thanks, Bandy. Some of those properties look just the ticket. Anywhere else? Come on, big up yo' hood.
Posted by Carter (Member # 426) on :
Those addresses are giving me a very pleasurable wave of proustiness. I think I lived in that house in Links Road. I loved Tooting, BM, I think you would too. There's a dusty/glittery charm to the place. And shitloads of good curry, of course, with the added bonus of an excellent market in the Asian style.
Posted by Bandy (Member # 12) on :
The problem with a lot of South London is that it is either pretty shitty or really fucking expensive. The further east you go, the more you get for your money but, personally, I wouldn't want my kids wandering around Lewisham or Camberwell. Conversely, places like Putney, Richmond, Kew and Twickenham are very nice but horribly overpriced.
Other places which are "up and coming" and popular with your twenty-something types (not so sure how family-safe they are though) would be Brixton, Streatham, Kennington, Stockwell, Vauxhall.
Another place to have a look at is the area between Balham and Streatham. Lots of nice victorian properties, very residential but cheaper because they aren't right on top of a tube station. I think the area is called Furzedown or something.
Posted by Bandy (Member # 12) on :
Heh. Can you tell i'm currently property hunting myself?
[ 15.03.2005, 05:37: Message edited by: Bandy ]
Posted by scrawny (Member # 113) on :
Maybe we can move into Mask's spare bedroom.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bandy: the largest population of forward thikers in the capital.
"Erm, 2+2 you say? *glazed expression* Nope, no idea. You've got a gorgeous arse though, love. Fancy coming back to my place in Tooting? Eh? Bit of action? Woo hoo!"
Posted by Bandy (Member # 12) on :
I have a new keyboard and it is very hard to use. Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bandy: I have a new keyboard and it is very hard to use.
Not only have you made 'teh' look out of fashion but you're gunning to outdate 'I'm Dyslexic' in the popular excuses for spazuletype.
Posted by Vogon Poetess (Member # 164) on :
Where I lived in Earlsfield was very handy for travel (13 mins to Waterloo on mainline and near the District Line), and it was very quiet and civilised. Lots of nice old houses with gardens.
Full of South Africans though.
Posted by Octavia (Member # 398) on :
quote:Originally posted by New Way Of Decay: Not only have you made 'teh' look out of fashion but you're gunning to outdate 'I'm Dyslexic' in the popular excuses for spazuletype.
Spellchecking is this year's dyslexia, dahling.
Posted by Carter (Member # 426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poetess: Earlsfield...Full of South Africans though.
Shit yeah. What's that all about? Teh Puzz1e was ridden with them, not to mention bloody GJ's.
Nice apart from that. Friends of mine with a new baby have just moved down there, and prices aren't quite as silly as it's not on the tube.
Posted by Vogon Poetess (Member # 164) on :
Well, it was about 15 mins to Wimbledon Park from my house. Does that not count as "on the tube"?
Our old house was sold for £415k I think, 3 bedrooms inc a loft conversion, garden and conservatory.
Black Mask hasn't told us yet why he's fleeing south of the border.
Edit, the house wasn't sold by me for £415k, obviously. Still can't bear to "get on the property ladder" and become one of those people who asks, "so, do you own your own place then?" Cnuts.
[ 15.03.2005, 08:27: Message edited by: Vogon Poetess ]
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poetess: Black Mask hasn't told us yet why he's fleeing south of the border.
Me and Mrs. Mask should be starting new jobs next year, we also want to inflict another Masketeer on the faceless plutocrats. We need to move before we do either of the above. We were going to move to Glasgow, but it looks like we'll be able to stay in Glorious London, due to a slight change in circumstances. We're moving south 'cos it's cheaper. Isn't it? I know fuck all about housebuying/selling or 'the market'.
Posted by Octavia (Member # 398) on :
I hear all the best people are moving to Oxford.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by Octavia: I hear all the best people are moving to Oxford.
Good for them.
Now, South London...
Posted by SilverGinger5 (Member # 49) on :
Oxford's pretty cool, because you get all the benefits of really shit air that is the equivalent of smoking 20 fags a day like in London, but you don't have any of those pesky annoyances like places to go, so you save money due to sitting inside!
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
We used to live in Southfields which was a generally pleasant place, with the typical London contradictions of massive houses owned by the disgustingly wealthy just around the corner from blocks of council flats, and both lots of kids going to the same schools and getting on fine (at primary school anyway, can't speak for the secondary schools).
But I'd not say it's cheaper than any other part of London is it? We tried looking in other parts of town when we had more kids and wanted a bigger drum, but there was no change wherever we looked - maybe a slightly bigger front room, or an extra box room, but nothing to justify another five or ten miles on the commute in to town, and another hundred grand on the mortgage.
Apart from the famously ultra-moneyed/ultra-shithole areas it seemed that most of Greater London was about the same price, but maybe that's changed now? Nah.
Posted by Octavia (Member # 398) on :
quote:Originally posted by SilverGinger5: Oxford's pretty cool, because you get all the benefits of really shit air that is the equivalent of smoking 20 fags a day like in London, but you don't have any of those pesky annoyances like places to go, so you save money due to sitting inside!
This is unfortunately mostly true. Outside my office has one of the highest particulate levels in the world, coming shortly behind Mexico City. BUT I take issue with 'nothing to do' - Oxford has nearly as many theatres, venues, pubs and assorted wossnames as Edinburgh. Why, only tomorrow I'm going to a lecture on Greek Sculpture at the Ashmolean. Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Octavia: Why, only tomorrow I'm going to a lecture on Greek Sculpture at the Ashmolean.
It's easy to see why Oxford is becoming a favourite destination for Stag parties.
[ 15.03.2005, 09:44: Message edited by: Thorn Davis ]
Posted by herbs (Member # 101) on :
'ere. If you want cheap, go east. Leyton, Stratford, Mile End, and the Hams, west and east, have biggish houses, lots of tubes (unlike Saaaf L) and are 'up and coming'. Not so much in the way of decent bars n that, but as parents of many, no doubt you don't do any of that, preferring to stay in and sew name tags on to socks.
Posted by Bandy (Member # 12) on :
edit: utter nonsense
[ 15.03.2005, 09:50: Message edited by: Bandy ]
Posted by herbs (Member # 101) on :
quote:Originally posted by herbs: 'ere. If you want cheap, go east. Leyton, Stratford, Mile End, and the Hams, west and east, have biggish houses, lots of tubes (unlike Saaaf L) and are 'up and coming'. Not so much in the way of decent bars n that, but as parents of many, no doubt you don't do any of that, preferring to stay in and sew name tags on to socks.
bandy, i think your concerns about the masketeers wandering around lewisham would be more cogent if it wasnt for the fact that they are black mask's kids and so therefore obviously quite hard. armourplated pollypocket dolls and all that. even for like, 8 year old girls. anyway, you make lewisham sound like a warzone- its really not. its next to blackheath and greenwich, for a start, two of the best areas to bring up kids in south london.
i am in quite a privileged position here you see, because after secret satan i know exactly where black mask lives. bm, are you making the suburban flight here? are you after shady lanes filled with coffee shops, organic greengrocers, fashion boutiques, green spaces on which to fly a home-made kite? or do you mind a similar amount of urban flava to that which you enjoy now? you know, after the past weekend, im thinking east dulwich might be the way to go for you. i saw nuff families when i was walking around on sunday morning, and its cheaper (and less pretentious) than dulwich but nicer than neighbouring peckham. and its ideally located to take advantage of brixton's exciting social amenities.
[ 15.03.2005, 10:06: Message edited by: discodamage ]
Posted by Octavia (Member # 398) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis:
quote:Originally posted by Octavia: Why, only tomorrow I'm going to a lecture on Greek Sculpture at the Ashmolean.
It's easy to see why Oxford is becoming a favourite destination for Stag parties.
Do you want me to talk about the Centipede Incident?
Posted by Benny the Ball (Member # 694) on :
Wandsworth boy born and bred here.
Tooting Broadway is the cheapest option for Wandsworth area at present (also bonus of being on the tube - downside is that it is the Northern Line). Southfields is a little bit up itself (the Grid area there is very proud of its urban suburbia). Balham has become over-priced of late.
I would say that Streatham is always threatening to be up and coming, but has the worst High Street in the world.
Brixton and I have never seen eye-to-eye so I cannot say anything nice about it.
Colliers Wood is okay as a quieter just outside of Wandsworth place, but the council tax is shocking when compared to just over the road Wandsworth.
You should come down south and spend a day/evening in the area to get a feel for it. If you are planning that, don't go out in Clapham - it's full of people who work for Foxtons.
Go for a curry in Tooting (Sri Krishna and Kastoori for vegi, Rhada Krishna Bhana for meat are great, but Tooting Bec to Broadway is a little Indian world).
Posted by scrawny (Member # 113) on :
quote:Originally posted by Benny the Ball: You should come down south and spend a day/evening in the area to get a feel for it. If you are planning that, don't go out in Clapham - it's full of people who work for Foxtons.
Go for a curry in Tooting (Sri Krishna and Kastoori for vegi, Rhada Krishna Bhana for meat are great, but Tooting Bec to Broadway is a little Indian world).
For both of the above statements, Benny, we should hang out. Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bandy: The problem with a lot of South London is that it is either pretty shitty or really fucking expensive. The further east you go, the more you get for your money but, personally, I wouldn't want my kids wandering around Lewisham
I grew up wandering around Lewisham you litel scrote
Posted by doc d (Member # 781) on :
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: [/QB]
parappa the rapper?
Posted by scrawny (Member # 113) on :
Ace pic kovacs. Word.
[ 17.03.2005, 09:30: Message edited by: scrawny ]
Posted by omikin (Member # 37) on :
is "menacing camp" the look you were going for?
Posted by Benny the Ball (Member # 694) on :
a menacing camp cross between Pete Milligan and Garth Ennis
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
I was going for something like Zack Morris meets Romeo + Juliet-period Leo diCaprio for a bust-up with Marty McFly Jr from BttF II.
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
Is that a picture of you Kovacs?
You look just like my friend and one time flatmate Bob. He is actually gay, but that's neither here nor there.
eta: More to the point. Is that a grown man thinking it's really cool and sexy to play with a gun? Yeah right. Insert justification about how "ironic" you're being here.
[ 18.03.2005, 05:40: Message edited by: OJ ]
Posted by vikram (Member # 98) on :
you should check out the neighbourhoods beyond horrible brockey. i forgotten what they are called now. forest hill maybe. the eastlondon line will be exteded there up to like dalston via liverpool street. apparently. and teh houses are nice.
i grew up in the borough of wandsworth. they had good schools i think. eardley primary and furzedown secondary. but what the fuck do i know? moved to the shire when i was eight. it was in teh cuntry that teh damage was done, not wandsworth.
don't they have million pound houses in tooting now?
oh yeah, check out tooting bec common. was lovely. used to go with my dad every saturday to feed teh ducks.
Posted by The H Pony (Member # 784) on :
quote:Originally posted by OJ: eta: More to the point. Is that a grown man thinking it's really cool and sexy to play with a gun? Yeah right. Insert justification about how "ironic" you're being here.
Since when is it not cool and sexy to play with guns?
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
quote:Originally posted by OJ: Is that a picture of you Kovacs?
You look just like my friend and one time flatmate Bob. He is actually gay, but that's neither here nor there.
eta: More to the point. Is that a grown man thinking it's really cool and sexy to play with a gun? Yeah right. Insert justification about how "ironic" you're being here.
I'm not sure why you're being so sneerily unpleasant, but yes sometimes I do try to include "fun" in my life, ie. messing around with a toy gun for some cheesy photographs. I'm sorry if you disapprove.
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
I'm being sneerily unpleasant because I think that the fetishisation of guns as sexy, fashionable or cool is dangerous and wrong. Simple as that. How pleasant would you like me to be about things that kill people on the streets of South London, Manchester, Birmingham?
Don't make it my problem Kovacs. But do feel free to explain what is cool about that picture.
I was not being sneery at all about you looking like my friend Bob, by the way. That's a matter of fact.
Posted by Vogon Poetess (Member # 164) on :
quote:Originally posted by OJ:
But do feel free to explain what is cool about that picture.
Well, I certainly agree with far stricter gun control laws, but if you can't see what's "cool" about pictures like these:
then, you know, *spazz face*.
Posted by Carter (Member # 426) on :
I fucking love guns. Guns are cool. What we need is tighter black-people control laws, to stop them shooting each other.
No?
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by OJ: I'm being sneerily unpleasant because I think that the fetishisation of guns as sexy, fashionable or cool is dangerous and wrong. Simple as that. How pleasant would you like me to be about things that kill people on the streets of South London, Manchester, Birmingham?
Don't make it my problem Kovacs. But do feel free to explain what is cool about that picture.
Here's a thing I like about fiction: I know it's not real. That's way I can be genuinely exhilirated by Max Payne, Predator, Robocop, Aliens and yet appalled by gun crime. Another thing that's good about being in possession of mental faculties that allow you to place a definite dividing line between 'real' and 'not real' is being able to get excited by - say - the fight scenes in The Iliad without actually endorsing the spiky pointed slaughter of your fellow humans.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by OJ: Don't make it my problem Kovacs.
Those sound like the words of someone with a problem. At least one.
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
Do they Black Mask?
I think I stated my opinion quite clearly and am glad it started off a small discussion. But enough with the (amateur?) psychology.
Posted by Carter (Member # 426) on :
I'm lost.
Is OJ actually Turtle?
Posted by herbs (Member # 101) on :
Mask! Why don't you move to Walthamstow? Four-bed houses for £250K, a choob, two stations, europe's longest street market, and a new bus station. And, shortly, me.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by herbs: Mask! Why don't you move to Walthamstow? Four-bed houses for £250K, a choob, two stations, europe's longest street market, and a new bus station. And, shortly, me.
What's the parking like?
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by OJ: Do they Black Mask?
They do.
Posted by Vogon Poetess (Member # 164) on :
quote:Originally posted by herbs: Mask! Why don't you move to Walthamstow? Four-bed houses for £250K, a choob, two stations, europe's longest street market, and a new bus station. And, shortly, me.
And the dogs, with a fantastically cheesy meat market nightclub underneath.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
We've found a smashing little gaff on Shooters Hill. 190k. We'll go for a 'viewing' at the weekend, hopefully.
Posted by herbs (Member # 101) on :
quote:Originally posted by Black Mask:
quote:Originally posted by herbs: Mask! Why don't you move to Walthamstow? Four-bed houses for £250K, a choob, two stations, europe's longest street market, and a new bus station. And, shortly, me.
What's the parking like?
Doddle. That's why I'm going there. £30 a year, and a lackey parks your car for you when you get home.
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
Carter: No I'm not Turtle (do I know Turtle?)
Though I do have the hide of a rhinoceros, which is lucky since stating an unpopular opinion can lead to accusations of being sneery, spazzy and having some unspecified, presumably psychological problem. Wouldn't it be easier just to call me a bitch and point a toy gun at me?
But anyway...
VP - the pictures you posted are interesting.
I don't like the threatening Get Carter pic and never have. But then I also didn't like Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Bollocks, Layer Cake, recent Eastenders storylines or any other faux gangster capers you could care to mention. I loathed the facet of the whole Cool Britannia thing (which was pretty loathsome in itself) that tried to resurrect the British film industry by glamourising some mythic golden age of the Krays. So I wouldn't I guess.
The Bond pic is interesting, it's slightly different in that the gun is clearly not pointing at anyone and being used in a stylized way. I'm not sure that's any better, in terms of glamourising guns.
I do agree that gun control is the real issue at stake. However, I'd be interested to hear people's opinions on how glamourising weapons may contribute to their prevalence on the street for example, amongst young gang members.
The Alien pic is probably the only image (of the three VP posted) that I would recognise as iconic. For lots of reasons to do with kick-arse-feminism that I might well identify with. But I would say, on reflection, that it's still not cool.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Ah... it all makes sense now...
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by OJ: However, I'd be interested to hear people's opinions on how glamourising weapons may contribute to their prevalence on the street for example, amongst young gang members.
Good point - after all the most avaricious devourers of cool gun culture are probably pasty white mid twenties guys who spend there time, curtains drawn gurgling over cool images of Michael Caine with a shotgun, and they are truly a terrifying force to be reckoned with. See also: computer gamers. Fucking gun toting savages, the lot of them.
[ 18.03.2005, 09:48: Message edited by: Thorn Davis ]
Posted by omikin (Member # 37) on :
quote:Originally posted by Black Mask: We've found a smashing little gaff on Shooters Hill. 190k. We'll go for a 'viewing' at the weekend, hopefully.
i lived in shooters hill in 95-96. lovely little place on red lion lane. near the red lion.
lots of arsenal-related stuff around there to keep the masketeers amused - cannons and whatnot. plus! the first macdonalds in the uk on woolwich high street, which a semi-famous forite used to work in.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Look at her face, she's thinking "Wow. This gun's a bit like a massive cock! I wonder what it would be like to have a cock. I bet it would be great. I wish I had a cock."
Posted by omikin (Member # 37) on :
"...and not this oddly-inflating head."
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by omikin: "...and not this oddly-inflating head."
Her hair is a bit penis-shaped, now you come to mention it.
Posted by Carter (Member # 426) on :
quote:Originally posted by OJ: I do agree that gun control is the real issue at stake. However, I'd be interested to hear people's opinions on how glamourising weapons may contribute to their prevalence on the street for example, amongst young gang members.
I think that the ability of guns to coerce, threaten and if necessary wound or kill rivals is what attracts young gang members. Or it could be the shiny metal, and the fact that Busted are seen playing with Glock 17s in their last video!
quote:Originally posted by OJ: The Alien pic is probably the only image (of the three VP posted) that I would recognise as iconic.
lol
Edit - UBB. It's been a while...
[ 18.03.2005, 09:55: Message edited by: Carter ]
Posted by Vogon Poetess (Member # 164) on :
quote:Originally posted by OJ: I don't like the threatening Get Carter pic and never have. But then I also didn't like Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Bollocks, Layer Cake, recent Eastenders storylines or any other faux gangster capers you could care to mention. I loathed the facet of the whole Cool Britannia thing (which was pretty loathsome in itself) that tried to resurrect the British film industry by glamourising some mythic golden age of the Krays. So I wouldn't I guess.
Well, The Lock Stock BritFlick era can be rightly criticised for many things, but a central point of the film itself was the difficulty in obtaining guns, which made me curious as to how a proposed Hollywood remake would work. Also, the main firearms in the film are ridiculous-looking antiques, prized for their collector's value. So, you know.
Get Carter does not make being a 60s gang member look very appealing. Nothing about any of the characters or locations is very attractive. The picture of Caine with the gun is "cool" in itself, but the film hardly conveys the message that gun-based revenge will work out well.
I'm assuming we can blame the yanks for current yoof-gun-culcha.
Posted by Carter (Member # 426) on :
You aren't suggesting that OJ has actually seen any of those films, Veep?
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by Carter: You aren't suggesting that OJ has actually seen any of those films, Veep?
Or a penis?
Posted by Carter (Member # 426) on :
I'm honestly confused here.
Is OJ a Guardian-reading bloke or a lesbian?
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poetess: Well, The Lock Stock BritFlick era can be rightly criticised for many things, but a central point of the film itself was the difficulty in obtaining guns, which made me curious as to how a proposed Hollywood remake would work. Also, the main firearms in the film are ridiculous-looking antiques, prized for their collector's value. So, you know.
That's a good point - the most memorable acts of violence in Lock Stock are carried out with relatively mundane everyday objects: A car door, a dildo, a bottle of vodka and a match, for example. It doesn't really glamourise guns at all. Although what am I trying to prove here? That OJ's talking total shit? That's just preaching to the converted, I guess.
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
London has always been a dangerous place. The chilling description of what Irishmen are capable of, contained in this article should serve as a warning to all of us.
And yesterday was a celebration of this violent, usually inebriated 'culture'? Sheer lunacy.
Posted by herbs (Member # 101) on :
Hey everyone! Mask's moving to Shooters Hill!
[ 18.03.2005, 10:17: Message edited by: herbs ]
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
I've seen all of the Alien films and enjoyed them. Maybe I will watch them again/think again about them.
As for the rest of the personal/lesbian/have you ever seen a penis shit. I'm not even dignifying that with an answer.
I thought maybe it was a question to think about. But I guess the stock answer is, that white, middle-class technorati don't see why they should have to think about it. It's not our problem is it?
Posted by Carter (Member # 426) on :
I've thought about it, toots.
You have some questions to answer.
Look!
Just up there!
NB - I'm serious about who or what you are. Take this as a compliment that your gender or sexuality doesn't colour your writing to any great extent, if you want.
NBx2 - I'm a lot posher than middle-class, you cheeky fuck.
Posted by Bandy (Member # 12) on :
quote:Originally posted by Carter: NBx2 - I'm a lot posher than middle-class, you cheeky fuck.
Heh. Its true. He's the poshest person I know.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by OJ: I thought maybe it was a question to think about. But I guess the stock answer is, that white, middle-class technorati don't see why they should have to think about it. It's not our problem is it?
I don't understand this. I watch loads of gun fetishisation movies, and play loads of gun glamourising so I guess if it's a problem, it must be my problem. I'm right bang in the centre of the 'target market', absolute model consumer base for the companies producing this stuff, and I yum it up. But! I'm not into gun crime, I'm terrified of it, and I'd never deliberately visit harm on anyone. So if it's not my problem... whose problem is it?
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
Sorry Carter, I feel no compulsion whatsoever to answer personal questions, especially in this context.
Perhaps you should ask BM, who was the one who brought penises into a conversation about guns. Nowt to do with me.
Posted by Carter (Member # 426) on :
My challenge to your lazy assumption that people in gangs use guns because they're *coll* is a personal question?
Man, you're sensitive.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by OJ: Sorry Carter, I feel no compulsion whatsoever to answer personal questions, especially in this context.
Perhaps you should ask BM, who was the one who brought penises into a conversation about guns. Nowt to do with me.
FOR FUCK'S SAKE HOW ABOUT MEETING THE HALF DOZEN OTHER POINTS PEOPLE HAVE RAISED THAT DON'T RELATE TO YOUR PERSONAL LIFE BUT RATHER THE CRASS POINT YOU MADE ABOUT THE FETISHIZATION OF GUNS Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis:
quote:Originally posted by OJ: I thought maybe it was a question to think about. But I guess the stock answer is, that white, middle-class technorati don't see why they should have to think about it. It's not our problem is it?
I don't understand this. I watch loads of gun fetishisation movies, and play loads of gun glamourising so I guess if it's a problem, it must be my problem. I'm right bang in the centre of the 'target market', absolute model consumer base for the companies producing this stuff, and I yum it up. But! I'm not into gun crime, I'm terrified of it, and I'd never deliberately visit harm on anyone. So if it's not my problem... whose problem is it?
Okay. Tangential example: smoking. These days it is (virtually) unheard of to see a "good", "glamorous", "beautiful", "cool" etc. character in a movie smoking. It's the preserve of the bad guys and the fuck ups. This is less the case on British TV, but gradually (IMO) going the way of the movies. It's illegal in this country to portray smoking as glamorous, cool or associated with success in advertising at least.
If (and I know it's an if) the legislators have it right on smoking - that associating it with glamour or success makes it more acceptable... Then is there, by extension an argument to be made about the glamour of guns?
Posted by Bandy (Member # 12) on :
It's all about finding the sensitive spot with these mild-mannered posters. Next up: Saltrock pushed into a frenzy after Thorn Davis' assertion that black women can't drive.
Posted by Carter (Member # 426) on :
Fuck off, I'm not telling you that.
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
See cross-post Thorn.
Posted by Astromariner (Member # 446) on :
Why are people giving OJ such a hard time?
quote:Originally posted by OJ: I thought maybe it was a question to think about.
I think it is, too, although I don't know what I think about it, exactly (no big surprise there). It would be interesting to find out what anti-gun charities like the Disarm Trust have to say about the influence of guns and gun culture in music and films. I don't know how significant a factor it is in the rise of gun crime, together with social factors like poverty, perceived lack of opportunities etc, but it seems a bit disingenuous to claim that it's completely irrelevant and that, just because people here can easily distinguish between real life and make believe, everyone can.
Posted by Boy Racer (Member # 498) on :
quote:Originally posted by herbs: Hey everyone! Mask's moving to Shooters Hill!
Christ, that's within spitting distance of where I live. Must invest in an umbrella.
Posted by Carter (Member # 426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Astromariner: Why are people giving OJ such a hard time?
Because she's using her sexuality and imagined attacks thereon to try and divert attention from a frankly pitiful argument.
See also: irritating **** called Sebba at school. Used to get beaten up all the bloody time for being an irritating little shit. Went off crying antisemitism. Not because you're Jewish, mate. Because you're a **** .
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by OJ: If (and I know it's an if) the legislators have it right on smoking - that associating it with glamour or success makes it more acceptable... Then is there, by extension an argument to be made about the glamour of guns?
No.
Firstly, it hinges on the big 'if' you identify at the very beginning, suggesting that you already acknowledge that the argument you formerly presented with misplaced confidence is actually on pretty rocky ground. I could put forward a similar argument about how legislation declared it wrong to portray gay, or inter-racial relationships on screen. I can't imagine you'd agree with that - so it seems absurd to go running to the same reactionary body to try and prove your point on gun crime.
If it is the case that seeing gun crime directly causes people to take up arms why haven't I, picked up a handgun? Why aren't film nits the most dangerous militia on the planet? It just doesn't hold water.
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Carter:
quote:Originally posted by Astromariner: Why are people giving OJ such a hard time?
Because she's using her sexuality and imagined attacks thereon to try and divert attention from a frankly pitiful argument.
See also: irritating **** called Sebba at school. Used to get beaten up all the bloody time for being an irritating little shit. Went off crying antisemitism. Not because you're Jewish, mate. Because you're a **** .
Er, no I'm not. I never brought up anything personal, including my sexuality.
It might be an easy peg for other "mild mannered" posters to hang their ridicule on, but I'm not engaging with it.
Posted by Carter (Member # 426) on :
You're still not defending your argument, though.
Why?
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: No.
Firstly, it hinges on the big 'if' you identify at the very beginning, suggesting that you already acknowledge that the argument you formerly presented with misplaced confidence is actually on pretty rocky ground. I could put forward a similar argument about how legislation declared it wrong to portray gay, or inter-racial relationships on screen. I can't imagine you'd agree with that - so it seems absurd to go running to the same reactionary body to try and prove your point on gun crime.
If it is the case that seeing gun crime directly causes people to take up arms why haven't I, picked up a handgun? Why aren't film nits the most dangerous militia on the planet? It just doesn't hold water.
Is there any point having this conversation?
Your answer here shows that you're not willing/don't think it's relevant to think about whether it's the case that glamorous images can make things socially acceptable... instead we're back on the mechanics of misplaced arguments, false confidence etc.
What your reasons for that might be, I don't know as I'm not an amateur psychologist. If I have time I might look into the research avenues Astromariner suggested, which might at least offer some insight.
Can't be arsed to argue about arguing....
[ 18.03.2005, 10:43: Message edited by: OJ ]
Posted by doc d (Member # 781) on :
will thismake guns cool?
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
quote:Originally posted by doc d: will thismake guns cool?
He he. No, I doubt it. Possibly armoured personnel carriers though. Think of the parking chaos....
Posted by doc d (Member # 781) on :
i'm sorry, why are you laughing?
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by OJ: Is there any point having this conversation?
Your answer here shows that you're not willing/don't think it's relevant to think about whether it's the case that glamorous images can make things socially acceptable... instead we're back on the mechanics of misplaced arguments, false confidence etc.
What your reasons for that might be, I don't know as I'm not an amateur psychologist. If I have time I might look into the research avenues Astromariner suggested, which might at least offer some insight.
Can't be arsed to argue about arguing....
You've misinterpreted me there, in your attempt to second guess me. In all honesty, I really truly believe that your argument is actually fundamentally founded in your racism, and also class snobbery. That may seem a bit out of left field, but I don't think it's unjustifiable.
Whenever people argue what you've been arguing: that gun movies influence people to pick up guns, they're never really talking about themselves. It's always - as Astromariner says - a case of "Oh we know the difference between films/ reality but what about poor people, or blacks for example". OJ came pretty close to explicitly saying this with her comment that she felt TMO was saying from a white middle class POV that it's not our problem. What does that mean? Clearly, it means OJ thinks it's an underclass non-white problem, and that's really my biggest problem with her stance. It's sort of this prejudice masquerading as concern. "Oh but the povs and the blacks are so easily influenced by these things. It's patronising and so, so wrong in its intent and identification of why there may be gun crime in non-white, or non-wealthy communties. To suggest that the ability to intelligently distiguish between an artistic representation of gun chic, and the actual horrible reality of shooting someone in real life, is somehow the preserve of the white middle class, is actually badly wrong and probably the most disgraceful thing OJ has attempted to argue here.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
I reckon it's testament to TMO's untarnishable right-on credentials that no-one has, so far, made any mention of the possibility of any painters being in.
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Carter: I fucking love guns. Guns are cool. What we need is tighter black-people control laws, to stop them shooting each other.
No?
Posted by Carter (Member # 426) on :
Sweet jesus, have you only just seen that?
Posted by Astromariner (Member # 446) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: It's always - as Astromariner says - a case of "Oh we know the difference between films/ reality but what about poor people, or blacks for example".
Hang on a minute! That wasn't what I was saying at all. I was responding specifically to your point about how you might dig guns and violence in films and games and stuff, but in 'real life' it appals you. The way you made that point suggested to me that your view was "it's not a problem for me, therefore it isn't a problem for anyone else". I don't pretend to even slightly know what I'm talking about: I don't know nearly enough about this kind of thing to make a coherent point (as you can see), but surely it's better to try to look at a number of different arguments than to go "this is what I think. End of".
Posted by Carter (Member # 426) on :
I'm guilty of short-hand sometimes. I think Thorn put a bit more eloquence in to it, a few minutes ago.
So. OJ. How much do you think your opinions on this are coloured by your assumptions about gang members/disaffected youths/the poor black population of our inner-cities?
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Astromariner: Hang on a minute! That wasn't what I was saying at all. I was responding specifically to your point about how you might dig guns and violence in films and games and stuff, but in 'real life' it appals you. The way you made that point suggested to me that your view was "it's not a problem for me, therefore it isn't a problem for anyone else". I don't pretend to even slightly know what I'm talking about: I don't know nearly enough about this kind of thing to make a coherent point (as you can see), but surely it's better to try to look at a number of different arguments than to go "this is what I think. End of".
OK - I can see how you'd want to distance yourself from OJ's stance, but it was just that your "we know the difference..." comment came pretty close to her comment that telling the difference between fiction and reality was a problem for non-white and poor people.
Posted by Astromariner (Member # 446) on :
no - it's not about wanting to distance myself from anyone's stance (though incidentally, I'm not sure I understand her argument in the way that you do), it's about clarifying what I meant, as opposed to what it suited you that I meant.
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
End of, Astromariner. End of.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
quote:Originally posted by OJ: I'm being sneerily unpleasant because I think that the fetishisation of guns as sexy, fashionable or cool is dangerous and wrong. Simple as that. How pleasant would you like me to be about things that kill people on the streets of South London, Manchester, Birmingham?
Don't make it my problem Kovacs. But do feel free to explain what is cool about that picture.
I was not being sneery at all about you looking like my friend Bob, by the way. That's a matter of fact.
OK, I just thought you were insulting me by saying I looked like a gay man. No problem!
Anyway, I didn't say I thought my picture was cool. I think Scrawny did. I said it was me having a bit of "fun". This was an occasion where my friend had bought me a cap gun as a little Christmas present, and before going out we took some pictures while we had a drink. I don't think that's especially odd or unusual -- surely lots of people occasionally do cheesy photo poses with their mates before a night out, or put together some accessories into a bit of fancy dress? As someone who enjoys "fashion" I might have thought you could understand that messing around with costume and props might be harmlessly enjoyable.
However, I don't see guns as "fashionable": of course I wouldn't carry a gun around to be trendy, that's absurd to me. Of course I don't see toy guns as fashionable either, any more than I see astronaut costumes or Robin Hood outfits as fashionable. If someone gave me such a thing, I'd enjoy putting it on indoors and posing in it, but it doesn't mean I want to join the space program or hide out in trees robbing the rich. Enjoying the idea of dressing up might be immature but it isn't be any more irresponsible than a girl wearing sexy bunny undies, or a goth in fetish gear.
I don't see real guns as remotely cool: I see them, as most people would, as very frightening. I don't see my toy gun as cool either -- I see it as silly but fun. And I don't see my photo as cool either, I see it as slightly daft. But I feel comfortable enough on TMO to post up pictures of me looking slightly daft.
I think for you to associate me doing some kind of space-cowboy pose, with a kids' toy, for a pal's snapshot, with actual gun-crime, is more than slightly daft. And as I think has been suggested above, if you don't like the fetishisation of guns as cool, you must hate most popular cinema from the end of the 19th century onwards. Basically I think you're on a losing argument.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Astromariner: no - it's not about wanting to distance myself from anyone's stance (though incidentally, I'm not sure I understand her argument in the way that you do), it's about clarifying what I meant, as opposed to what it suited you that I meant.
Oh for heaven's sake, I'm just saying what I believe, I'm not trying to manipulate your points to 'suit' me. Grow up.
Posted by Astromariner (Member # 446) on :
fair do's.
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
I'm not sure that I even understand my argument in the way that Thorn does.
As I saw it....rewinding smoothly through some of the accusations being thrown around..... I thought it was a question about why it is acceptable to make guns glamorous and whether that had any relationship to the rise of guns on the street.
The whole thing, to rewind even further, came from the fact that I was puzzled by and yes, quite uncomfortable with Kovacs' fun picture of himself posing with a gun pointed at the lens/viewer. His pose suggested a certain feeling of glamour, sexiness, style, edginess that maybe a few years ago I wouldn't have questioned. But now I do.
Part of the reason I do is that I see in the news that there are more and more shootings on urban streets. Closer to home (literally), there have been two fatal shootings that I can think of in the last year, within a few streets of my house in a northern city.
I don't claim to know anything about gang culture, but I think it may be too easy to dismiss gang violence as something to do with "them" (meaning gang members, of whatever race, and in the area I'm talking about it happens to be white people with guns, but that's not my point).
I hadn't actually thought in any depth about films, because my discomfort and the question was prompted by that picture alone. But of course it's all part of the same question. Hell, I've played Grand Theft Auto and had a whale of a time (mainly with the driving around with the radio on, but that's because I'm shit at the gameplay, not out of any altruism on my part).. but I've started to feel uncomfortable with it.
Can the cultural influence of certain imagery really be as simple as "well I can distinguish between fiction and reality?" I'm not sure I'd want to argue that.
I wouldn't want to argue that about other types of imagery which were once far more commonplace in films and TV drama than they are now (or at least than I perceive them to be) .... for example casual domestic violence. And of course the smoking example, which I still think is a valid comparison to make when we're talking about something that's seen as desirable and acceptable in society at large.
As for the racism issue - I think I've addressed that above and, as it's predicated on things that I've not said and I don't think can be reasonably read between the lines of what I have said - I'm not going to say any more about.
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
That's a bit pathetic, Thorn. You did try to score a cheap/easy point by making out that Astromariner was coming from the exact same direction as OJ and simply wanted to disassociate herself. If someone was so dismissive of your point of view - what you believe - you'd completely spaz out.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
quote:Originally posted by OJ: I loathed the facet of the whole Cool Britannia thing (which was pretty loathsome in itself) that tried to resurrect the British film industry by glamourising some mythic golden age of the Krays. So I wouldn't I guess.
I havn't even read the rest of the thread yet, I just wanted to point out that I overheard a conversation today of a lady who was sending he daughter away because of upsetting a crack dealer who had a gun. His age? 17. I really don't think that films and music encourage gun crime. Gun toters encourage gun crime and parents are responsible for drilling the negative implications into their childrens minds, as highlighted rather simply and brilliantly by boy racing mungloid, Ringo.
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: Anyway, I didn't say I thought my picture was cool. I think Scrawny did. I said it was me having a bit of "fun". This was an occasion where my friend had bought me a cap gun as a little Christmas present, and before going out we took some pictures while we had a drink. I don't think that's especially odd or unusual -- surely lots of people occasionally do cheesy photo poses with their mates before a night out, or put together some accessories into a bit of fancy dress? As someone who enjoys "fashion" I might have thought you could understand that messing around with costume and props might be harmlessly enjoyable.
Because I've cross-posted with you, I should add that I totally agree with you on this point. Yes, I do get dressing up and larking about with silly props and have done myself on many an occasion. It's just the discomfort with the gun pose as above.....
Posted by Carter (Member # 426) on :
What else are you supposed to do with a gun? What pose would not have made you uncomfortable?
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by OJ: Can the cultural influence of certain imagery really be as simple as "well I can distinguish between fiction and reality?" I'm not sure I'd want to argue that.
Well, no, obviously not: you're arguing the opposite.
Anyway, i don't think you really did answer, the racism thing did you?
I mean you did say " guess the stock answer is, that white, middle-class technorati don't see why they should have to think about it. It's not our problem is it?" So I don't think you can dismiss my point as being based around something you didn't say, as you - wrongly - state, so much as it's based around something you did say. Can you see the difference?
Facetiousness aside, it might be helpful if you explained what you meant by that comment. My interpretation is that if the issue of "monkey see guns, monkey fire guns" isn't a white, middle class problem than you're saying it is a problem for non-white, lower income people.
Posted by Roy (Member # 705) on :
quote:Originally posted by Carter: What else are you supposed to do with a gun? What pose would not have made you uncomfortable?
Maybe if Kovacs posed putting the gun in the bin he would be sending out a positive message to the nation's youth.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by ben: That's a bit pathetic, Thorn. You did try to score a cheap/easy point by making out that Astromariner was coming from the exact same direction as OJ and simply wanted to disassociate herself. If someone was so dismissive of your point of view - what you believe - you'd completely spaz out.
Look, fucksake, I think this pretty accurate and I'd thank you not to pile in against me using astute jabs at my techniques ever again. Wanker.
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Carter: What else are you supposed to do with a gun? What pose would not have made you uncomfortable?
Any pose with a gun I think Carter. Especially pointing at the viewer. Though, not exclusively - pointing at one's own head, laid across the thigh of a bikini-clad woman, held aloft triumphantly....all of those would probably make me uncomfortable too.
Some of them might push buttons more obviously and outrage more people...
Posted by Vogon Poetess (Member # 164) on :
Is Chris Morris scripting TMO today? I'd like to hear Fir-Q's thought's on kovacs' jaunty gun pose.
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
The "it's not our problem" remark was a response to your facetious point about "pasty white twentysomethings" who play computer games, being a menace to society. I interpreted this as you aligning yourself with the pasty gameplayers.
You and I clearly have different aims in a conversation. You clearly want to win an argument at all costs, though thankfully the personal shit seems to have abated. I would like to discuss what the relationship between phenomena might be.
I would hope to God that it's not the case that "monkey see gun, monkey shoot gun". I give society credit for more complexity than that. But what is the relationship?
Posted by Carter (Member # 426) on :
quote:Originally posted by OJ: I would hope to God that it's not the case that "monkey see gun, monkey shoot gun". I give society credit for more complexity than that. But what is the relationship?
Do I have to repost my observation that if you are involved in an illegal business such as drugs etc, then guns are, you know, somewhat handy?
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
I don't want you to do anything, especially if you would consider it beneath you.
Go have a fight with someone else.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by OJ: You and I clearly have different aims in a conversation. You clearly want to win an argument at all costs, though thankfully the personal shit seems to have abated. I would like to discuss what the relationship between phenomena might be.
No - that's a totally inaccurate representation. I'm posting what I believe to be the case, OJ, and believe it or not that contradicts what you believe. Amazingly, i can hold a different opinion from you, and not just be saying it for the sake of it.
You haven't met a half dozen points that's been raised on here - like why pick on Lock Stock, when there's hardly any gun violence in it? Or really, you haven't answered the crucial point about why you think a white person is less likely to be influenced than a non-white person. I've heard similar arguments to yours before, and as I say I do think they're founded in prejudice. I think you find it easier to dismiss me as just being argumentative, then you do as to question your own motives for thinking the way you do but I'm really truly just posting what I believe. I do think it's a bit I dunno wrong? arrogant? to play GTA, and enjoy it and then think "o, but what about other people, who aren't as clever as me? They won't be able to disassociate themselves from the real world violence in the way I can". I dunno.
[ 18.03.2005, 12:04: Message edited by: Thorn Davis ]
Posted by Carter (Member # 426) on :
Edit - to OJ
Pick your dummy up.
Are you saying that you can't see how the ability of a gun to threaten, wound and kill people would attract those engaged in illegal and violent behaviour?
[ 18.03.2005, 12:05: Message edited by: Carter ]
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: Or really, you haven't answered the crucial point about why you think a white person is less likely to be influenced than a non-white person.
Because I don't. End of. That's a spurious point introduced by you.
eta: in a hurry, because I have to be somewhere else, Carter. Likewise I do see that. But it still doesn't affect why you don't see glamourising guns as also relevant.
[ 18.03.2005, 12:08: Message edited by: OJ ]
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Actually, what's the point?
[ 19.03.2005, 05:02: Message edited by: Thorn Davis ]
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
Anyone who saw Barley last night will realise OJ was spot-on. I shall say no more because I don't want to spoil the shocking final episode, broadcast again this evening.
Posted by Samuelnorton (Member # 48) on :
Posters for films like Get Carter and the the 007 series can hardly be connected to gun violence. Certain urban music, however, can. But this has more to do with the core attitudes expressed rather than the gun thing. I don't want to make this into a blacke issue, but am simply making a point.
Removing images with guns won't reduce gun crime, in the same way that banning handguns will never prevent another Dunblane. People who want to be silly with guns will always find a way.
OJ - you suggested that smoking is no longer 'cool' as far as movie posters are concerned - but what about this:
O, and there's a gun there too! Fancy that. But stop: I'd say the combination of Uma's cleavage and pout is even more dangerous. Hottly dangerous, I'd say.
The only disturbing thing about Kovacs' image on the other hand is that he looks like slightly gaye.
[ 20.03.2005, 00:52: Message edited by: Samuelnorton ]
Posted by Benny the Ball (Member # 694) on :
Pulp Fiction is 11 years old - I think smoking has taken a considerable knocking in the decade and a bit since that poster was about.
Posted by jnhoj (Member # 286) on :
I think OJ's fatal mistake is somehow thinking that Kovacs is glamorising guns in that picture rather than making it seem faintly ridiculous!
I mean, who exactly is Kovacs glamorising guns to by posting that picture? Given that the picture is fairly innoculous, pretty much anything involving a gun is worse than that...in fact...I can see there not being much point to entering this argument, being as it is already many numbers v 1. So. I'm going to go kill things in videogames, enjoy it, laugh manically and then shoot up on some herod juice. BYE!
Posted by Samuelnorton (Member # 48) on :
quote:Originally posted by Benny the Ball: Pulp Fiction is 11 years old - I think smoking has taken a considerable knocking in the decade and a bit since that poster was about.
This is from 2003.
Hmm. I don't know if this one has any subliminal meaning. Aggressive-looking blacke fellow with handgun; sexy, pouting blonde with cigarette. Hmm.
[ 20.03.2005, 13:52: Message edited by: Samuelnorton ]
Posted by Benny the Ball (Member # 694) on :
Ha ha. Obviously designed by a white man, what with the undersized gun and all... Posted by The H Pony (Member # 784) on :
quote:Originally posted by Benny the Ball: Pulp Fiction is 11 years old - I think smoking has taken a considerable knocking in the decade and a bit since that poster was about.
Still more people taking it up than ever before, though. So perhaps that demonstrates better than anything else that removing the 'glamourisation' of something from popular culture has no demonstrable effect on actual culture.
Surely it's possible to draw a parallel (as OJ did earlier) between this and gun-glamour in movies, and draw the conclusion that gun-glamour in popular culture also has buggerall to do with real culture, and that removing/de-coolising guns in films etc would have precisely no effect on gun crime whatsoever.
OJ, people don't carry guns because guns are cool. People carry guns because they want to shoot someone or they're afraid of getting shot themselves. End. Of. Story.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)