The Church of England decided this week to allow taggers to cover the interior
of the oldest cathedral in England with graffiti in order to represent the voices of "marginalized communities".
The Very Reverend David Monteith, Dean of Canterbury, said: "There is a rawness which is magnified by the graffiti style, which is disruptive. It is unfiltered and not sanitized. This exhibition intentionally builds bridges between cultures, styles, and genres, and allows us to receive the gifts of younger people who have much to say."
It's actually stunning how much the elites in Britain hate their own culture and civilization. You couldn?t even invent this as satire.
They are literally scrawling graffiti on the walls of ancient cathedrals. Everything beautiful is just torn down and destroyed.
https://x.com/Basil_TGMD/status/1976641232404398126
On 10/12/2025 12:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
The Church of England decided this week to allow taggers to cover the
interior
of the oldest cathedral in England with graffiti in order to represent the >> voices of "marginalized communities".
The Very Reverend David Monteith, Dean of Canterbury, said: "There is a
rawness which is magnified by the graffiti style, which is disruptive. It is
unfiltered and not sanitized. This exhibition intentionally builds bridges >> between cultures, styles, and genres, and allows us to receive the gifts of >> younger people who have much to say."
It's actually stunning how much the elites in Britain hate their own culture
and civilization. You couldn?t even invent this as satire.
They are literally scrawling graffiti on the walls of ancient cathedrals. >> Everything beautiful is just torn down and destroyed.
https://x.com/Basil_TGMD/status/1976641232404398126
Presumably it's eventually reparable...
On Oct 12, 2025 at 12:29:04 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 10/12/2025 12:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
The Church of England decided this week to allow taggers to cover the
interior
of the oldest cathedral in England with graffiti in order to represent the
voices of "marginalized communities".
The Very Reverend David Monteith, Dean of Canterbury, said: "There is a >>> rawness which is magnified by the graffiti style, which is disruptive. It is
unfiltered and not sanitized. This exhibition intentionally builds bridges
between cultures, styles, and genres, and allows us to receive the gifts of
younger people who have much to say."
It's actually stunning how much the elites in Britain hate their own culture
and civilization. You couldn?t even invent this as satire.
They are literally scrawling graffiti on the walls of ancient cathedrals. >>> Everything beautiful is just torn down and destroyed.
https://x.com/Basil_TGMD/status/1976641232404398126
Presumably it's eventually reparable...
Cleaning it up scars the surface, and even so, wouldn't it be racist to erase the cries of the marginalized?
On 10/12/2025 3:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Oct 12, 2025 at 12:29:04 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>
On 10/12/2025 12:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
The Church of England decided this week to allow taggers to cover the >>>> interior
of the oldest cathedral in England with graffiti in order to represent the
voices of "marginalized communities".
The Very Reverend David Monteith, Dean of Canterbury, said: "There is a >>>> rawness which is magnified by the graffiti style, which is disruptive. >>>> It is
unfiltered and not sanitized. This exhibition intentionally builds bridges
between cultures, styles, and genres, and allows us to receive the
gifts of
younger people who have much to say."
It's actually stunning how much the elites in Britain hate their own >>>> culture
and civilization. You couldn?t even invent this as satire.
They are literally scrawling graffiti on the walls of ancient cathedrals.
Everything beautiful is just torn down and destroyed.
https://x.com/Basil_TGMD/status/1976641232404398126
Presumably it's eventually reparable...
Cleaning it up scars the surface, and even so, wouldn't it be racist to
erase
the cries of the marginalized?
If cleaning it scars it, then one might consider letting the graffiti
fad expire, and cleaning only when more can be prevented.
(Note, btw, that the Dean is very likely a strong advocate of "free speech".)
The Church of England decided this week to allow taggers to cover the interior
of the oldest cathedral in England with graffiti in order to represent the voices of "marginalized communities".
The Very Reverend David Monteith, Dean of Canterbury, said: "There is a rawness which is magnified by the graffiti style, which is disruptive. It is unfiltered and not sanitized. This exhibition intentionally builds bridges between cultures, styles, and genres, and allows us to receive the gifts of younger people who have much to say."
It's actually stunning how much the elites in Britain hate their own culture and civilization. You couldn?t even invent this as satire.
They are literally scrawling graffiti on the walls of ancient cathedrals. Everything beautiful is just torn down and destroyed.
https://x.com/Basil_TGMD/status/1976641232404398126
On Oct 12, 2025 at 1:20:59 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 10/12/2025 3:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Oct 12, 2025 at 12:29:04 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 10/12/2025 12:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
The Church of England decided this week to allow taggers to cover the >>>>> interior
of the oldest cathedral in England with graffiti in order to represent the
voices of "marginalized communities".
The Very Reverend David Monteith, Dean of Canterbury, said: "There is a
rawness which is magnified by the graffiti style, which is disruptive.
It is
unfiltered and not sanitized. This exhibition intentionally builds bridges
between cultures, styles, and genres, and allows us to receive the >>>>> gifts of
younger people who have much to say."
It's actually stunning how much the elites in Britain hate their own >>>>> culture
and civilization. You couldn?t even invent this as satire.
They are literally scrawling graffiti on the walls of ancient cathedrals.
Everything beautiful is just torn down and destroyed.
https://x.com/Basil_TGMD/status/1976641232404398126
Presumably it's eventually reparable...
Cleaning it up scars the surface, and even so, wouldn't it be racist to >>> erase
the cries of the marginalized?
If cleaning it scars it, then one might consider letting the graffiti
fad expire, and cleaning only when more can be prevented.
*This* could have been prevented. Instead it was welcomed by the self-flagellating white people running the place.
speech".)
Unlikely. He's probably all in on the police investigations of mean tweets-- 12,000 people this year jailed or otherwise sanctioned by the government for tweeting "crimes"-- while the police say they're too understaffed to even show
up to your home burglary.
On 10/12/2025 4:30 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Oct 12, 2025 at 1:20:59 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>
On 10/12/2025 3:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Oct 12, 2025 at 12:29:04 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 10/12/2025 12:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
The Church of England decided this week to allow taggers to cover the
interior
of the oldest cathedral in England with graffiti in order to
represent the
voices of "marginalized communities".
The Very Reverend David Monteith, Dean of Canterbury, said: "There is a
rawness which is magnified by the graffiti style, which is disruptive.
It is
unfiltered and not sanitized. This exhibition intentionally builds >>>>>> bridges
between cultures, styles, and genres, and allows us to receive the >>>>>> gifts of
younger people who have much to say."
It's actually stunning how much the elites in Britain hate their own
culture
and civilization. You couldn?t even invent this as satire.
They are literally scrawling graffiti on the walls of ancient >>>>>> cathedrals.
Everything beautiful is just torn down and destroyed.
https://x.com/Basil_TGMD/status/1976641232404398126
Presumably it's eventually reparable...
Cleaning it up scars the surface, and even so, wouldn't it be racist to >>>> erase the cries of the marginalized?
If cleaning it scars it, then one might consider letting the graffiti
fad expire, and cleaning only when more can be prevented.
*This* could have been prevented. Instead it was welcomed by the
self-flagellating white people running the place.
You can't prevent what you don't foresee.
>> (Note, btw, that the Dean is very likely a strong advocate of "free
speech".)
Unlikely. He's probably all in on the police investigations of mean tweets--
12,000 people this year jailed or otherwise sanctioned by the government for
tweeting "crimes"-- while the police say they're too understaffed to even >> show
up to your home burglary.
On Oct 12, 2025 at 3:21:26 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 10/12/2025 4:30 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Oct 12, 2025 at 1:20:59 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>
On 10/12/2025 3:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Oct 12, 2025 at 12:29:04 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 10/12/2025 12:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
The Church of England decided this week to allow taggers to cover the
interior
of the oldest cathedral in England with graffiti in order to >>>>>>> represent the
voices of "marginalized communities".
The Very Reverend David Monteith, Dean of Canterbury, said: "There is a
rawness which is magnified by the graffiti style, which is disruptive.
It is
unfiltered and not sanitized. This exhibition intentionally builds
bridges
between cultures, styles, and genres, and allows us to receive the
gifts of
younger people who have much to say."
It's actually stunning how much the elites in Britain hate their own
culture
and civilization. You couldn?t even invent this as satire. >>>>>>>
They are literally scrawling graffiti on the walls of ancient >>>>>>> cathedrals.
Everything beautiful is just torn down and destroyed.
https://x.com/Basil_TGMD/status/1976641232404398126
Presumably it's eventually reparable...
Cleaning it up scars the surface, and even so, wouldn't it be racist to >>>>> erase the cries of the marginalized?
If cleaning it scars it, then one might consider letting the graffiti >>>> fad expire, and cleaning only when more can be prevented.
*This* could have been prevented. Instead it was welcomed by the
self-flagellating white people running the place.
You can't prevent what you don't foresee.
and trash the place, how is the resulting ruination unforeseeable?
>> (Note, btw, that the Dean is very likely a strong advocate of "free >>>> speech".)
Unlikely. He's probably all in on the police investigations of mean tweets--
12,000 people this year jailed or otherwise sanctioned by the government for
tweeting "crimes"-- while the police say they're too understaffed to even >>> show
up to your home burglary.
On 10/12/2025 6:30 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Oct 12, 2025 at 3:21:26 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>
On 10/12/2025 4:30 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Oct 12, 2025 at 1:20:59 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 10/12/2025 3:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Oct 12, 2025 at 12:29:04 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On 10/12/2025 12:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
The Church of England decided this week to allow taggers to cover the
interior
of the oldest cathedral in England with graffiti in order to >>>>>>>> represent the
voices of "marginalized communities".
The Very Reverend David Monteith, Dean of Canterbury, said: >>>>>>>> "There is a
rawness which is magnified by the graffiti style, which is disruptive.
It is
unfiltered and not sanitized. This exhibition intentionally builds
bridges
between cultures, styles, and genres, and allows us to receive the
gifts of
younger people who have much to say."
It's actually stunning how much the elites in Britain hate their own
culture
and civilization. You couldn?t even invent this as satire. >>>>>>>>
They are literally scrawling graffiti on the walls of ancient >>>>>>>> cathedrals.
Everything beautiful is just torn down and destroyed.
https://x.com/Basil_TGMD/status/1976641232404398126
Presumably it's eventually reparable...
Cleaning it up scars the surface, and even so, wouldn't it be racist to
erase the cries of the marginalized?
If cleaning it scars it, then one might consider letting the graffiti >>>>> fad expire, and cleaning only when more can be prevented.
*This* could have been prevented. Instead it was welcomed by the
self-flagellating white people running the place.
You can't prevent what you don't foresee.
My understanding is that the graffiti occurred first ...spontaneously.
> I don't know what you're talking about. When you say to taggers,
come on in and trash the place, how is the resulting ruination unforeseeable?
>> (Note, btw, that the Dean is very likely a strong advocate of "free
speech".)
Unlikely. He's probably all in on the police investigations of mean >>>> tweets--
12,000 people this year jailed or otherwise sanctioned by the
government for
tweeting "crimes"-- while the police say they're too understaffed to even
show
up to your home burglary.
On Oct 12, 2025 at 3:51:15 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 10/12/2025 6:30 PM, BTR1701 wrote:You're understanding is incorrect. The graffiti was done on the inside of the church with the encouragement of the clergy. Otherwise engaging the door locks
On Oct 12, 2025 at 3:21:26 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>
On 10/12/2025 4:30 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Oct 12, 2025 at 1:20:59 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 10/12/2025 3:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Oct 12, 2025 at 12:29:04 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 10/12/2025 12:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
The Church of England decided this week to allow taggers to cover the
interior
of the oldest cathedral in England with graffiti in order to >>>>>>>>> represent the
voices of "marginalized communities".
The Very Reverend David Monteith, Dean of Canterbury, said: >>>>>>>>> "There is a
rawness which is magnified by the graffiti style, which is disruptive.
It is
unfiltered and not sanitized. This exhibition intentionally builds
bridges
between cultures, styles, and genres, and allows us to receive the
gifts of
younger people who have much to say."
It's actually stunning how much the elites in Britain hate their own
culture
and civilization. You couldn?t even invent this as satire. >>>>>>>>>
They are literally scrawling graffiti on the walls of ancient >>>>>>>>> cathedrals.
Everything beautiful is just torn down and destroyed. >>>>>>>>>
https://x.com/Basil_TGMD/status/1976641232404398126
Presumably it's eventually reparable...
Cleaning it up scars the surface, and even so, wouldn't it be racist to
erase the cries of the marginalized?
If cleaning it scars it, then one might consider letting the graffiti
fad expire, and cleaning only when more can be prevented.
*This* could have been prevented. Instead it was welcomed by the >>>>> self-flagellating white people running the place.
You can't prevent what you don't foresee.
My understanding is that the graffiti occurred first ...spontaneously.
would have prevented it.
come on in and trash the place, how is the resulting ruination unforeseeable?
>> (Note, btw, that the Dean is very likely a strong advocate of "free
speech".)
Unlikely. He's probably all in on the police investigations of mean >>>>> tweets--
12,000 people this year jailed or otherwise sanctioned by the
government for
tweeting "crimes"-- while the police say they're too understaffed to even
show
up to your home burglary.
On 10/12/2025 7:08 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Oct 12, 2025 at 3:51:15 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>
On 10/12/2025 6:30 PM, BTR1701 wrote:You're understanding is incorrect. The graffiti was done on the inside of >> the
On Oct 12, 2025 at 3:21:26 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 10/12/2025 4:30 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Oct 12, 2025 at 1:20:59 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On 10/12/2025 3:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Oct 12, 2025 at 12:29:04 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 10/12/2025 12:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
The Church of England decided this week to allow taggers to >>>>>>>>>> cover thePresumably it's eventually reparable...
interior
of the oldest cathedral in England with graffiti in order to
represent the
voices of "marginalized communities".
The Very Reverend David Monteith, Dean of Canterbury, said: >>>>>>>>>> "There is a
rawness which is magnified by the graffiti style, which is >>>>>>>>>> disruptive.
It is
unfiltered and not sanitized. This exhibition intentionally builds
bridges
between cultures, styles, and genres, and allows us to receive the
gifts of
younger people who have much to say."
It's actually stunning how much the elites in Britain hate their own
culture
and civilization. You couldn?t even invent this as satire. >>>>>>>>>>
They are literally scrawling graffiti on the walls of ancient
cathedrals.
Everything beautiful is just torn down and destroyed. >>>>>>>>>>
https://x.com/Basil_TGMD/status/1976641232404398126 >>>>>>>>>
Cleaning it up scars the surface, and even so, wouldn't it be racist to
erase the cries of the marginalized?
If cleaning it scars it, then one might consider letting the graffiti
fad expire, and cleaning only when more can be prevented.
*This* could have been prevented. Instead it was welcomed by the >>>>>> self-flagellating white people running the place.
You can't prevent what you don't foresee.
My understanding is that the graffiti occurred first ...spontaneously.
church with the encouragement of the clergy. Otherwise engaging the door
locks
would have prevented it.
My understanding was indeed incorrect, as, it seems, was yours:
--------
...according to those working at the cathedral, the "Hear Us" installation, using large stickers simulating graffiti, was reportedly inspired by working with "marginalised communities and a team of skilled artists to create vibrant handwritten literature responding to the
question: ?What would you ask God??"
--------
So, it was an *exhibition*, graffiti-style, and not a defacement...
On Oct 13, 2025 at 9:05:01 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 10/12/2025 7:08 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Oct 12, 2025 at 3:51:15 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>
On 10/12/2025 6:30 PM, BTR1701 wrote:You're understanding is incorrect. The graffiti was done on the inside of >>> the
On Oct 12, 2025 at 3:21:26 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 10/12/2025 4:30 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Oct 12, 2025 at 1:20:59 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 10/12/2025 3:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:*This* could have been prevented. Instead it was welcomed by the >>>>>>> self-flagellating white people running the place.
On Oct 12, 2025 at 12:29:04 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 10/12/2025 12:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
The Church of England decided this week to allow taggers toPresumably it's eventually reparable...
cover the
interior
of the oldest cathedral in England with graffiti in order to
represent the
voices of "marginalized communities".
The Very Reverend David Monteith, Dean of Canterbury, said:
"There is a
rawness which is magnified by the graffiti style, which is
disruptive.
It is
unfiltered and not sanitized. This exhibition intentionally builds
bridges
between cultures, styles, and genres, and allows us to receive the
gifts of
younger people who have much to say."
It's actually stunning how much the elites in Britain hate their own
culture
and civilization. You couldn?t even invent this as satire.
They are literally scrawling graffiti on the walls of ancient
cathedrals.
Everything beautiful is just torn down and destroyed. >>>>>>>>>>>
https://x.com/Basil_TGMD/status/1976641232404398126 >>>>>>>>>>
Cleaning it up scars the surface, and even so, wouldn't it be racist to
erase the cries of the marginalized?
If cleaning it scars it, then one might consider letting the graffiti
fad expire, and cleaning only when more can be prevented. >>>>>>>
You can't prevent what you don't foresee.
My understanding is that the graffiti occurred first ...spontaneously. >>>>
church with the encouragement of the clergy. Otherwise engaging the door >>> locks
would have prevented it.
My understanding was indeed incorrect, as, it seems, was yours:
--------
...according to those working at the cathedral, the "Hear Us"
installation, using large stickers simulating graffiti, was reportedly
inspired by working with "marginalised communities and a team of skilled
artists to create vibrant handwritten literature responding to the
question: ?What would you ask God??"
--------
So, it was an *exhibition*, graffiti-style, and not a defacement...
Then why wouldn't/didn't any of the media reports note that?
cathedral, especially one of the most historically significant cathedrals in Christendom, seems rather blasphemous. I'm not religious, but I have to think if I was, seeing my clergy behaving this way would piss me off to a high degree.
Cleaning it up scars the surface, and even so, wouldn't it be racist to erase
the cries of the marginalized?
If cleaning it scars it, then one might consider letting the graffiti
fad expire, and cleaning only when more can be prevented. (Note, btw,
that the Dean is very likely a strong advocate of "free speech".)
However, even if it's not permanently damaging, allowing gang tags in a >cathedral, especially one of the most historically significant cathedrals in >Christendom, seems rather blasphemous. I'm not religious, but I have to think >if I was, seeing my clergy behaving this way would piss me off to a high >degree.
On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 17:31:37 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:
However, even if it's not permanently damaging, allowing gang tags in a
cathedral, especially one of the most historically significant cathedrals in >> Christendom, seems rather blasphemous. I'm not religious, but I have to think
if I was, seeing my clergy behaving this way would piss me off to a high
degree.
Hell yes!
On 10/16/2025 3:36 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 17:31:37 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:
However, even if it's not permanently damaging, allowing gang tags in a >>> cathedral, especially one of the most historically significant cathedrals in
Christendom, seems rather blasphemous. I'm not religious, but I have to >>> think
if I was, seeing my clergy behaving this way would piss me off to a high >>> degree.
Hell yes!
Is it more or less blasphemous than a drawing of Mohammed?
On Oct 16, 2025 at 1:28:32 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 10/16/2025 3:36 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 17:31:37 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:
However, even if it's not permanently damaging, allowing gang tags in a >>>> cathedral, especially one of the most historically significant cathedrals in
Christendom, seems rather blasphemous. I'm not religious, but I have to >>>> think
if I was, seeing my clergy behaving this way would piss me off to a high >>>> degree.
Hell yes!
Is it more or less blasphemous than a drawing of Mohammed?
Who knows? Let me know when the Muslims allow cartoons of Mohammed to be stuck
to walls of their mosque.
On Oct 16, 2025 at 1:28:32 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 10/16/2025 3:36 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 17:31:37 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:
However, even if it's not permanently damaging, allowing gang tags in a >>>> cathedral, especially one of the most historically significant cathedrals in
Christendom, seems rather blasphemous. I'm not religious, but I have to >>>> think
if I was, seeing my clergy behaving this way would piss me off to a high >>>> degree.
Hell yes!
Is it more or less blasphemous than a drawing of Mohammed?
Who knows? Let me know when the Muslims allow cartoons of Mohammed to be stuck >to walls of their mosque.
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 14 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 32:24:59 |
| Calls: | 178 |
| Files: | 21,502 |
| Messages: | 78,692 |