Comments on: Burger King billboard gets diabetes graffiti

By: know1

know1 — Sat, 22 Oct 2011 18:39:00 +0000

To those complaining about vandalism, I’d just like to say that huge, corporate billboards like this Burger King ad are vandalizing the earth. I’m much more offended by that. (Actually, I’m not offended by the artist’s “vandalism” at all. It’s hilarious.)

By: Itsumishi

Itsumishi — Sat, 22 Oct 2011 06:12:00 +0000

Yes instead of vandalising the billboard that’s driven this discussion and likely many other discussions between people that have seen it, the vandal in question should have decided to start saving his pennies so one day they too could rent a billboard to make his point. Of course, it wouldn’t be allowed to bear the Burger King logo, as that would violate intellectual property.

I can’t see how anyone could possibly be silenced by following by these rules.

By: Elizabeth Coleman

Elizabeth Coleman — Sat, 22 Oct 2011 05:42:00 +0000

This thing, or one just like it, is down the hill from me, I have to see it every day on my commute, and I'm ecstatic to see it defaced. But at least it's not as bad as the other monstrosity floating around Seattle, the Taco Del Mar cougar billboard.

By: Palomino

Palomino — Sat, 22 Oct 2011 04:00:00 +0000

I just bought KingKalorie.com

By: Palomino

Palomino — Sat, 22 Oct 2011 03:55:00 +0000

Most fast food ads contain two messages. One is irresponsible, and the other a responsible explanation.

Irresponsible: Eat a complete meal of our only our desserts consisting of an Entree, a side and a drink. (At McDonald’s that would be a burger, fries and pop.)

Responsible Answer: We only wanted to send a message that our menu items could be defined in different ways, we never intended this to represent one full meal. That would be just silly, it doesn’t contain all food groups.

I believe where they royally screwed up was calling a Sundae an “Entree”.

By: Bill

Bill — Sat, 22 Oct 2011 03:52:00 +0000

“What I don’t like is when someone tries to silence a critic rather than add to the debate.”

Which is exactly what you are trying to do…

By: Donald Petersen

Donald Petersen — Sat, 22 Oct 2011 03:03:00 +0000

vigilantes?

a bit dramatic, don’t you think?

Well, sure. This is AdverTerrorism at its most insidious!

Plus, it’s treasonous against our beloved fast food royalty. His Majesty is not amused.

By: bocomo

bocomo — Sat, 22 Oct 2011 01:10:00 +0000

vigilantes?

a bit dramatic, don’t you think?

By: billbard

billbard — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 23:02:00 +0000

>He didn’t even cover up any messages on the original billbard

The billbard travels far and wide, singing the praises of his corporate sponsors to the gathered peasants!

By: nosehat

nosehat — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 22:34:00 +0000

Thanks! I wonder if there are any true high res images floating around out there though.

By: ChicagoD

ChicagoD — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 22:29:00 +0000

Totally irrelevant example. This billboard was not white washed (the equivalent of shutting down the magazine). The billboard was gently modified. Every single person looking at the modified billboard knows exactly what Burger King is saying. Their message is as clear as it was before the vandalism. Given the impracticality of countering billboards with other billboards, this strikes me as pretty harmless activity.

By: ChicagoD

ChicagoD — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 22:26:00 +0000

Yeah. People ought to be careful running around supporting vigilantes. We have more Klan rallies in our history than tea parties (although the two do seem to be growing into one . . .) Isn’t it enough to say that the “vandal” here made a point (i.e. furthered the conversation) without obliterating Burger King’s speech?

By: ChicagoD

ChicagoD — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 22:24:00 +0000

Yeah. I was joking.

By: Antinous / Moderator

Antinous / Moderator — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 21:57:00 +0000

Vandals like the a$$ clown who painted on this billboard are just that, vandals. I don't care about the billboard, it's message, or the political points the vandal is trying to make. If he disagrees with the sign, he has a right to his voice, but not to violate another's property.

Yeah, fuck vandalism. It's downright unamerican.

By: Cowicide

Cowicide — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 21:39:00 +0000

this vandal decided to silence his opposition

Ah, yes.. the irony…

You DO KNOW who owns this billboard, don’t you? Just checking…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_Channel_Communications#Censorship

By: Cowicide

Cowicide — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 21:35:00 +0000

I bet you hate the Fight Club movie. Hahaha….

By: Brainspore

Brainspore — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 21:25:00 +0000

I’m reasonably sure the person who made that particular counter-point didn’t have a multimillion dollar counter-marketing budget. There’s not a lot of profit to be had in the message “actually, you probably shouldn’t eat that.”

By: TokenCapitalist

TokenCapitalist — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 21:16:00 +0000

“silence” was a poor choice of words. Food coma’s suck.

What I don’t like is when someone tries to silence a critic rather than add to the debate. For example, there were some conservatives back at my university who didn’t like a particular left-wing on-campus magazine. They wanted it shut down or at least prevent on-campus distribution. I had to educate them that that was wrong. They had a right to publish what they did. So instead of trying to shut them down, I encouraged these guys to start their own magazine and put out their own point of view. This elevates the discussion, increases diversity of opinion, and everyone gets to have their say.

Vandals like the a$$ clown who painted on this billboard are just that, vandals. I don’t care about the billboard, it’s message, or the political points the vandal is trying to make. If he disagrees with the sign, he has a right to his voice, but not to violate another’s property.

By: millie fink

millie fink — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 21:16:00 +0000

Bloody brill, bro!

Bust deleterious ads, however you can. It’s one of the most noble forms of vandalism. Culture jamming’s not a style; it’s a weapon.

By: ChicagoD

ChicagoD — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 21:12:00 +0000

You get your own billboard.

By: onereader

onereader — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 21:10:00 +0000

I honestly can’t see this supposed “destruction” or “silencing.”

By: tyger11

tyger11 — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 21:09:00 +0000

How is his opposition silenced? He didn’t even cover up any messages on the original billbard, just added to it.

By: Andy Lester

Andy Lester — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 21:04:00 +0000

I prefer my dialogue to not involve destruction of the property of others.

By: Brainspore

Brainspore — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 20:41:00 +0000

Ah yes, rather than add to the discussion, this vandal decided to silence his opposition…

How else do you have a discussion with a billboard?

By: Donald Petersen

Donald Petersen — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 20:27:00 +0000

The chubbiness of the cheeks coupled with the Xed-out eyes really make this a win. Had I been the guy who designed the ad in the first place, I’d still be laughing my ass off.

But man, that entree looks tempting. I may hit the local BK on my way home tonight.

By: ChicagoD

ChicagoD — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 20:20:00 +0000

Token argument as well. He left their entire message, including the logo, in place. How are they silenced? I am pretty supportive of private property, but corporate speech is just . . . commercials.

By: Elf Sternberg

Elf Sternberg — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 20:15:00 +0000

Must be the same guy who hacked the McDonalds sign a couple of months ago. Even the handwriting looks the same. I took a picture of it in downtown Seattle:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/elfsternberg/3663473032/

By: Beren

Beren — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 20:04:00 +0000

Bravo

By: Kevin Pierce

Kevin Pierce — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 19:59:00 +0000

I’m lovin’ it…

By: Cowicide

Cowicide — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 19:54:00 +0000

Anyone notice the nice ClearChannel logo at the top? What a wonderful, rightwing company they are… /s

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_Channel_Communications#Criticism_of_Clear_Channel