Chav Dickheads

[Big Jack McBastard]

Captialism is shit.

Yeah for Communism.

I'm so silenced it's beyond belief.

[Ciarán2]

Are you saying that my life is worth nothing?

Not at all. You seem to be equating your life with your property there. I don't think your life is merely the sum total of your accumulated posessions and the effort it has taken you to acquire them!

Well I could live in a house without windows, might get a bit damp and cold in the winter. Now explain to me why I have to work for free just because some chav wants a laugh. Tell me why my time is worth nothing and that I am not allowed to live in a secure, warm home.

It's not fair, is it? But that's the point. Why the hell should anyone have to be the victim of pointless attacks. If you take away the reason for the anger expressed by these people you get rid of the repercussions. Continually laying all of the blame on them, just isolates them further and the whole vicious circle continues.

I must assume you walk around naked, never eat anything (let alone cook anything, what with?) and you live on the streets (not even in a cardboard box). If any of those assumptions are wrong you are a hypocrite. Come to think of it, how the hell are you postin gon an internet forum?

Oh I'm a prime target for yob anger, and you should have heard me ranting about shit working class culture when the incident at the pub I mentioned above occurred. But I hate that terrible yob mentality because it is unnecessary. I just don't feel its origin is in the criminals, it's broader than that, it's ingrained in our society's value system, which is hegemonic - merely the values of the ruling order. The only way out of that, I feel, is for debate. I'm lucky enough to have gone to university and accumulated the vocabulary to criticise, the "lumpen proletariat" can't, and I think the reasons for the systematic denial of their right to access the same ideas as the intelligensia are blaringly obvious.

Do I contradict myself? Very well, I contradict myself. I contain multitudes.

[Suttonpubcrawl]

Don't be so ridiculous....

You seem to have misunderstood my point.

Well, it would help if you'd explicitly made the point that you then go on to claim to be making. What you actually talked about was someone worse off taking from someone better off. But never mind.

The damging of property, bus shelters and phone boxes and the other things you mentioned is an expression of the rage caused by the unfair distribution of wealth.

But this is irrelevant really, isn't it? If it's an expression of rage caused by the unfair distribution of wealth then it's a moronic one, like the child who smashes up his toys in a tantrum. The fact that it's an expression of rage at the capitalist society doesn't make it any less stupid, or any better. After all it's not really the capitalist system that suffers, it's the person's neighbours who are themselves probably equally downtrodden. If I were to beat you up because I was a bit pissed off and wanted to beat someone up, it wouldn't really be any different than if I were beating you up as a piece of performance art to demonstrate how the capitalist system is unfair. I'd still be a cunt and you'd still be beaten up (or not, I'm not very hard you know), and the whole thing would still be wrong.

Counter-arguments to capitalism have been effectively silenced in recent years

Has it? It seems to me that it's still fairly prominent, at least in academic circles. Of course arguably, academia isn't all that relevant to the people committing this antisocial behaviour.

so the violence towards property carried on by the people at the bottom end of the ladder represents the most visceral critique of capital that there is. Such violence is undemocratic, it is a rejection of democracy and of the value system of a society which has impoverished them not just economically but culturally.

And at the same time, people arguing about vandalism and theft as if it's some noble form of expression that is fighting against capitalism is fairly irrelevant to the people who've been mugged, whose public amenities have been vandalised and who live in fear of people who are probably in exactly the same boat as they are.

Maybe kids wrecking computers in a school isn't such a bad thing. It shows what I would consider a healthy disregard for the school itself, towards authority.

Have you been to a school where stuff like that happens? I expect you'll reply saying "Yes, I have, I found it very liberating to be among people who so vigourously rejected the capitalist ideals forced upon them", this often seems to happen when I ask a question like that. It just seems that no one who's had first hand experience of the kind of antisocial behaviour that exists could really be arguing that it's a good thing. Smashing computers doesn't show a disregard for authority. It shows a complete failure to understand the consequences of your actions and a disregard for other people. A failure to understand that smashing up the computers will probably just mean less money to spend on things the people doing the smashing up might enjoy, or things which might make their experience of school better. Also, a failure to understand that it doesn't really challenge authority at all, it just gives the IT technicians a headache and drains a bit of money from the school while the world around carries on as normal. A disregard for the other students who want to use the computers to learn and do something constructive with their time, while around them their classmates try to fuck everything up for them.

[Blumf]

You, Ciarán,  are a hypocrite. I can only assume you live of some trust fund your overpaid parents set up.

[Ciarán2]

Don't be so ridiculous....

You seem to have misunderstood my point.

Well, it would help if you'd explicitly made the point that you then go on to claim to be making. What you actually talked about was someone worse off taking from someone better off. But never mind.

Fair enough. I'm not a very eloquent writer. But I didn't mean it in a having-a-go way.

If it's an expression of rage caused by the unfair distribution of wealth then it's a moronic one, like the child who smashes up his toys in a tantrum. The fact that it's an expression of rage at the capitalist society doesn't make it any less stupid, or any better. After all it's not really the capitalist system that suffers, it's the person's neighbours who are themselves probably equally downtrodden. If I were to beat you up because I was a bit pissed off and wanted to beat someone up, it wouldn't really be any different than if I were beating you up as a piece of performance art to demonstrate how the capitalist system is unfair. I'd still be a cunt and you'd still be beaten up (or not, I'm not very hard you know), and the whole thing would still be wrong.

But it's a very direct expression, and there is no alternative. In what other way could this (righteous, I think) rage be expressed? Hardly through art, and certainly not through politics - those areas are reserved for the oppressors.

Counter-arguments to capitalism have been effectively silenced in recent years

Has it? It seems to me that it's still fairly prominent, at least in academic circles. Of course arguably, academia isn't all that relevant to the people committing this antisocial behaviour.

Well communism was fairly effectively rubbished and stamped out, there isn't really a stron socialist party left, the unions are gone, any area which has politically or culturally challenged the tenets of capitalism has been eroded. And I agree that such debate happenning with academic circles is helpful but in an extremely limited way.

And at the same time, people arguing about vandalism and theft as if it's some noble form of expression that is fighting against capitalism is fairly irrelevant to the people who've been mugged, whose public amenities have been vandalised and who live in fear of people who are probably in exactly the same boat as they are.

I agree, but at least it shows that we don't live in some kind of consumer paradise. My problem with it is that people attack the symptoms rather than the real issue at stake. On reflection though, and if leftist philosophy regained genuine weight, people might tackle the issues differently.

Have you been to a school where stuff like that happens? I expect you'll reply saying "Yes, I have, I found it very liberating to be among people who so vigourously rejected the capitalist ideals forced upon them", this often seems to happen when I ask a question like that.

Yes I have been to a school like that and I was bullied constantly. I hated school, I hated the bullies, I always rejected that behaviour. I grew up on a very rough council estate by the way, but I was one of the "lucky" ones who wanted to escape it, owing to my  mother's side of the family's bourgeois tendencies no doubt.

[Ciarán2]

You, Ciarán,  are a hypocrite. I can only assume you live of some trust fund your overpaid parents set up.

Right, so because everybody owns something there can be no debate ever and we're stuck with the system we have. Oh sod off...

[Blumf]

You, Ciarán,  are a hypocrite. I can only assume you live of some trust fund your overpaid parents set up.

Right, so because everybody owns something there can be no debate ever and we're stuck with the system we have. Oh sod off...

You are not leading by example. You don't need to own a PC, or deal with one at all. You are a hypocrite.

Only a spoilt idiot who's never had to work for anything in their life could hold your opinions on mindless yobs smashing property.

[hencole]

RE: Property is theft. It's not an unreasonble point of view and lot of people think it myself included. Just because I own things and don't want them taken doesn't make it less so. If you think that it' acceptable for someone to own more reources (and I mean far more than they could posibly use or justify having) than someone who has nothing then thats your point of view. Blumf your argument is pathetic and full of asumptions about someone you don't know.

[Ciarán2]

You, Ciarán,  are a hypocrite. I can only assume you live of some trust fund your overpaid parents set up.

Right, so because everybody owns something there can be no debate ever and we're stuck with the system we have. Oh sod off...

You are not leading by example. You don't need to own a PC, or deal with one at all. You are a hypocrite.

Only a spoilt idiot who's never had to work for anything in their life could hold your opinions on mindless yobs smashing property.

I was a bit abrupt there. That wasn't me flouncing off by the way - the internet place closed. So I'm in a different one now. In Madrid. I'm a big globetrotting bourgeois bastard.

Ok back to your comments there. You may consider me a spoilt idiot and that's fair enough - maybe I am one. Actually I am an idiot, and I am fairly spoiled - I'm in a lucky position - I have had the luxury of a third level education and got to move abroad and get a fairly satisfying job (as a teacher). I still think it is a duty to be self-critical though, in a way which is productive. So I do take into account your irritation at my posts. You do seem quick to dish out insults though.

What precisely do you mean when you say I'm a hypocrite? In what way am I being hypocritical? I'm merely criticising the system which, although it has been fairly kind to me, has terrible effects on others.

[Blumf]

RE: Property is theft. It's not an unreasonble point of view and lot of people think it myself included. Just because I own things and don't want them taken doesn't make it less so. If you think that it' acceptable for someone to own more reources (and I mean far more than they could posibly use or justify having) than someone who has nothing then thats your point of view. Blumf your argument is pathetic and full of asumptions about someone you don't know.

Can you explain how a society without property works? Where is the incentive? Why should the farmer produce more than he needs himself? Why does the bin man bother to get up in the morning? It's all wistful day dreaming.

To be honest, I'm not providing arguments against Ciarán. Naughty me!

[Ciarán2]

Can you explain how a society without property works? Where is the incentive? Why should the farmer produce more than he needs himself? Why does the bin man bother to get up in the morning? It's all wistful day dreaming.

Sorry if i get the jump on Hencole here, but specifically it's private property which is the issue. The farmer should produce more than he need himself because he loves what he does, that should be the basic principle of work shouldn't it? People need his produce so he does it out of love for his fellow man.

People often say to me that the ideas of the left are "idealistic", but capitalism started out as an idea - every system does.

[Frinky]

To be honest, I'm not providing arguments against Ciarán. Naughty me!

You know, you could have quite good arguments if you weren't such a twat about it.

[hencole]

RE: Property is theft. It's not an unreasonble point of view and lot of people think it myself included. Just because I own things and don't want them taken doesn't make it less so. If you think that it' acceptable for someone to own more reources (and I mean far more than they could posibly use or justify having) than someone who has nothing then thats your point of view. Blumf your argument is pathetic and full of asumptions about someone you don't know.

Can you explain how a society without property works? Where is the incentive? Why should the farmer produce more than he needs himself? Why does the bin man bother to get up in the morning? It's all wistful day dreaming.

To be honest, I'm not providing arguments against Ciarán. Naughty me!

I'm not saying it does work. That is a long argument that should be saved for a thread of its own! My main concern is how human rights and property rights are often given the same weighting.

[Blumf]

What precisely do you mean when you say I'm a hypocrite? In what way am I being hypocritical? I'm merely criticising the system which, although it has been fairly kind to me, has terrible effects on others.

The fact that you aren't smashing up the PC you're sitting at. After all, it's apparently the only way to show your displeasure at property.

I'd be interested to see you spending a year in a sink estate, living on the dole. I'd be hard pressed to believe you'd still carry your views about little jerks who like to smash up the neighbourhood being misunderstood salt of the earth types.

The fact that, in the UK at least and assuming the system is working (it doesn't always, I know), nobody actually should need for the basics (food, shelter). In this situation theft is pure greed. As for petty vandalism, well you can put your social worker hat on and tut tut about how it's a cry against an unfeeling society, but it hardly helps the vast majority of people who have to suffer from it and the atmosphere it creates. For both counts, there is no nobility in the acts and no excuse.

[Ciarán2]

What precisely do you mean when you say I'm a hypocrite? In what way am I being hypocritical? I'm merely criticising the system which, although it has been fairly kind to me, has terrible effects on others.

The fact that you aren't smashing up the PC you're sitting at. After all, it's apparently the only way to show your displeasure at property.

But if you're uneducated and disenfranchised, maybe violence is the only way to show your displeasure. It doesn't really hold to suggest that I should behaving in that way because, as I said earlier, I have been to university and have the vocab and inclination to debate.

I'd be interested to see you spending a year in a sink estate, living on the dole.

Well I have done, as I said, except it was for 23 years. (I was on the dole for five years)

I'd be hard pressed to believe you'd still carry your views about little jerks who like to smash up the neighbourhood being misunderstood salt of the earth types.

Yet I have these views, there are of course the majority of people on the kind of estates we're talking about who reject that culture - but there is a large minority of troublemakers and it's understandable why. you don't find so many hooligans in the really well off areas - of course it's tied to the degradation of the area you live in.

The fact that, in the UK at least and assuming the system is working (it doesn't always, I know), nobody actually should need for the basics (food, shelter). In this situation theft is pure greed. As for petty vandalism, well you can put your social worker hat on and tut tut about how it's a cry against an unfeeling society, but it hardly helps the vast majority of people who have to suffer from it and the atmosphere it creates. For both counts, there is no nobility in the acts and no excuse.

There is always a window for understanding, tolerance, and actually tackling the problems at their root though. It's not very helpful to portray those concerned with the injustices of the system as overly sentimental fools with nothing to contribute to the debate, but that has been the pervading tactic of the right, the conservatives and the very people who benefit most financially from said problems.

[Blumf]

There is always a window for understanding, tolerance, and actually tackling the problems at their root though. It's not very helpful to portray those concerned with the injustices of the system as overly sentimental fools with nothing to contribute to the debate, but that has been the pervading tactic of the right, the conservatives and the very people who benefit most financially from said problems.

How far do you let it go? Vandalism? Theft? Assault? Rape? Murder?
Is every crime committed by a poor person to be shrugged off as societys fault? You seem to be removing personal responsibility from people.

I don't deny that tackling the underlying problem is a good move, but in the meantime what about the vast majority of people who have to suffer? Why do they have to? Are you just saying that because someone owns something they're fair game?

[Suttonpubcrawl]

On the subject of property is theft, I thought that applied to capital and things like stocks and shares. Not to your ipod or your clothes or whatever. It was my understanding that the problem is the idea that people can make money without doing anything simply because they own something. That's certainly what I have a problem with. I don't have a problem with people earning money and spending it on things they like, for example a house to live in or whatever. I do have a problem with people spending money on something like a house, then being able to make money from it by charging rent on that house, simply because they own it. Or someone being able to cream off the profit that results from someone's hard work simply because they own the factory the person is working in or whatever.

[El Unicornio, mang]

Is it okay for people who can't get laid to rape women? I mean, it's not their fault they were born with the inability to attract the opposite sex. And it's totally unfair that the good looking/confident guys get more sex, so perhaps they should be beaten up, and their girlfriends taken and used by those who need it more.

Obviously raping someone is not the same as stealing property, but it's the same principle of taking something by force that you want but can't have by other means. I can't see how it can be justified at all.

[Coughlan]

I don't see the problem with chavs. they grow up in a very reactive atmosphere by people who don't know any better, who also beat them, drink and argue all the time...what do you expect them to grow up to be like?
I personally think there are things out there 10 times worst than chavs, one of them is thirteen year old grungers! now these little shits have no excuse. They walk around with black hoodies on that have a picture of kurt cobain on it (even though they were about two when he died) they have a totally unjustified attitude problem towards life. I even saw  a group of them shouting and abusing a young lad once just because he looked like a chav, now I think that is incredibly hypocritical coming from people who are supposed to live and let liv and not judge people by their looks. the point is Yes Chavs can be dick heads, so can middle class philosophy students, so can middle aged office workers so can 80 year ol grannies, it doesn't mean that you should label them all the same, whilst we're at it lets start a thread about how Blacks are all criminals and Gays all have aids and rape kids.

[Hairy Chin]

It's the selfishness and general yobbish attitude of chavs that people are offended by surely. Not all people that live on council estates or blocks of flats are chavs, just a few. And even then, even well-off people have chav kids.

I'm renting an ex-council house at the moment, the oldest boy next door is a chav tosser with his chunky curb-chain round his neck -even after he'd been in the bath or shower. I know this because the second day I lived here I had to go round and ask him to turn his music down and he came to the door wearing a fetching pink towel with this piece of wanky bling round his neck. He's always playing his car-thief techno happy hardcore bollocks at an inconsiderately loud volume - I can hear the bass loudly downstairs, when I go in any room upstairs I can hear the whole 'song' clearly, and if the windows are openin any of my front rooms it sounds like there's a concert in my front fucking garden.

By comparison, his younger brother is a nice kid - he's out the back garden jumping on the trampoline and is happy to spend his time kicking his ball against a wall or around the back garden and is always very polite when he comes to knock my door to ask for his ball back if he's kicked it over the fence. So it can't be their upbringing strictly - it's just the older kid next door is a cock.

Still, I'm on good terms with one of the Sergents of the local police, and he's said he's happy to go round if I get too pissed off with next-door's loud music. Well, I say music...

[Blumf]

It's the selfishness and general yobbish attitude of chavs that people are offended by surely. Not all people that live on council estates or blocks of flats are chavs, just a few. And even then, even well-off people have chav kids.

This is precisely it! Chavs aren't some little repressed ethnicity, they're not poor simpletons who can't be held responsible for their actions (a rather insulting view of poor people in general and one of my issues with Ciarán's comments), they are just little jerks who choose to be offensive and distructive regardless of their background.

I'm renting an ex-council house at the moment, the oldest boy next door is a chav tosser with his chunky curb-chain round his neck ...
... By comparison, his younger brother is a nice kid - he's out the back garden jumping on the trampoline and is happy to spend his time kicking his ball against a wall or around the back garden and is always very polite when he comes to knock my door to ask for his ball back if he's kicked it over the fence. So it can't be their upbringing strictly - it's just the older kid next door is a cock.

I can provide similar similar examples, I think it knocks on the head any 'society to blame' claims which, although undoubtedly a contributing factor, is most certainly not the primary one and is in no way an excuse for the individual.

Think of chavs like you think of racists. Unpleasant people who should be derided for their antisocial attitude and destructive behaviour.

[Hairy Chin]

Well, he's had his happy hardcore on already today, but today my computer is set up and running downstairs, and in the echoey room I'm in...I reckon my Cambridge Soundworks PC speaker system with a fairly impressive subwoofer can beat him...ooh, what to play.... :-)


Actually to get my own back on him last month, I was equally antisocial. I took a very short drum loop, and then just every now and then phased it, speeded it up, slowed it down, pitch-shifted it, distorted it...it lasted about 9 minutes and really was hard to listen to. So I turned my PC speakers up., put the bass up and hit play...then went for a shower.

[Evil Knevil]

Actually to get my own back on him last month, I was equally antisocial. I took a very short drum loop, and then just every now and then phased it, speeded it up, slowed it down, pitch-shifted it, distorted it...it lasted about 9 minutes and really was hard to listen to. So I turned my PC speakers up., put the bass up and hit play...then went for a shower.

Tee-hee . I remember being similarly antisocial in my old flat. On my only day off that week, my cunty next door neighbour started mowing his lawn at 8am.

I have a CD made for such emergencies. A death-metal band called 'Fister' whose stunning album 'Phrenum' can be bought  for £1 in all good Virgin stores.

* Full volume * Off for an early morning walk.

(cackles)

Only problem is that I forgot my other flatmates, one of whom chased me around the flat with a hockey stick when I got back.

[Leslie]

Round my way, Charvas have been about for years and years.  Sometimes they were just called Charvs but the word always rhymed with the word carve.  I don't know when or why it got bastardised in to Chav.

[Morrisfan82]

Chavs aren't some little repressed ethnicity, they're not poor simpletons who can't be held responsible for their actions (a rather insulting view of poor people in general ... ), they are just little jerks who choose to be offensive and distructive regardless of their background.

Can somebody put this up in big fucking letters on billboards up and down the country please? Thanks.

[Mister Cairo]

I do have a problem with people spending money on something like a house, then being able to make money from it by charging rent on that house, simply because they own it. Or someone being able to cream off the profit that results from someone's hard work simply because they own the factory the person is working in or whatever.

But people who rent out houses are providing a service aren`t they? Accomdation for people who thanks to the lack of council houses and cheap homes have nowhere else to try unless they live with their parents for another 10 years. Plus landlords also have to maintain and look after the property.

I agree with your second section, however

[Still Not George]

But people who rent out houses are providing a service aren`t they? Accomdation for people who thanks to the lack of council houses and cheap homes have nowhere else to try unless they live with their parents for another 10 years.

But they have that problem because of successive governments allowing greedy shitbags to buy council housing. So the landlords are still to blame, albeit not primarily.

[Coughlan]

Is it okay for people who can't get laid to rape women? I mean, it's not their fault they were born with the inability to attract the opposite sex

Quick Crime psychology lesson. you'll find in 99.9% of cases that rape has got nothing to do a mans lack of sex or his attraction to others. It' s purely down to taking control of another persons life because you've lost control of yours. some serial rapists were married and had Girlfriends, most rapists choose a victim indiscriminantly and, in the case of prison rape, sexuality has no bearing. In which case it is wrong to compare someone who steals to someone who rapes. Nobody wants to have to steal do they, for most it is a last resort. Just thought i'd point that out.

[Blumf]

Nobody wants to have to steal do they, for most it is a last resort. Just thought i'd point that out.

Ahem, ever heard of the welfare state?

And a little anecdote, teacher in Wolverhampton asks a pupil what he wants to do for a living, answer: rob houses just like dad. Seems that some people do want to steal.

What I'm saying is don't excuse anti-social behaviour with limp wristed reasoning.

[Ciarán2]

The equating of rape with theft - I don't see the similarity at all. People aren't commodities or property.

I'm incredulous that Bumfl thinks my attitude towards the poor is insulting , especially given that in the same sentence you go on to refer to the poor as "little jerks who chose to be offensive". I'm not in favour of "letting it go" in regard to vandalism and theft - I'm in favour of constructive debate to question the power structures in society and their role in the formulations of concepts of criminality. The end goal would be to reach a point where equality delivers people from the squalor surrounding them. As for assault, rape, murder....I haven't condoned any of these things. It's worth actually reckoning with why people end up resorting to such acts though, wouldn't you say?

I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall a bit here. I think the main thrust of this thread has been about self-definition.