Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Balenciaga Controversy

glossy.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 166 posts

Re: The Balenciaga Controversy

#81

Post by chc »

imwillofficial wrote: post #55
navjack27 wrote: post #43

To everyone commenting on this using the phrases: Seems bizarre Is bizarre Disturbing Seems concerning Fishy If someone shows you who they are believe them Shame Disgusting Literal demons Very unsettling Congratulations! You took the bait! Now you are participating in something called moral outrage. All you are doing is exactly what they want you to do. They being Balenciaga. You are free marketing.

You know, some things are worth being morally outraged at. It’s called having standards.

Yeah, I'm no crank, I'll let a lot of things fly. But a random piece of paper containing a printout of a Wikipedia page about a court ruling in the periphery of a photo is where I draw the line. It's called having standards.

Re: The Balenciaga Controversy

#82

Post by p0pcult »

ulfbert_inc wrote: post #69
p0pcult wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not just make it stick, but to implement stochastic terrorism, as with the recent LGBTQ nightclub shooting in Colorado.

You mean that shooting in which shooter was identified as a non-binary child of porn actor?

Sorry, which shooting was that? Hard to keep track here in the US.

Are you attempting to imply that the "non-binary" or "porn" adjectives are relevant here? I may be going out on a limb here, but I am not sure that "non-binary" or "porn" people commit shootings at different rates than the rest of the population--do you have any evidence, rather than mere implication (if that is in fact what you are implying)?

Re: The Balenciaga Controversy

#83

Post by WastingMyTime89 »

thepasswordis wrote: post #74
donkeyd wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's so unsettling about that? Sure, I understand they did this to cause a bit of a stir, but it's just people carrying around dolls in a dystopian setting. And even if there were actual babies in there, the most unsettling part is the danger of the person carrying the baby slipping in the mud and falling on top of the baby.

I don't think I can explain to you why this is unsettling in the same way I can't explain why abusing animals is bad, stealing is bad, or anything else is "bad". If we don't already have a shared system of morals which says "abuse of children is bad", then it seems unlikely I'm going to convince you that depictions of child abuse are bad. To me, this is "bad" because I subscribe to a belief system that thinks abusing…

Well done on implying someone not agreeing with you on the moral value of carrying dolls in a fashion show is actually them not caring about child abuse and having a poor moral system.

Please at least try to argue in good faith. It’s the first time I think I should flag a comment looking polite at face value.

Re: The Balenciaga Controversy

#84

Post by p0pcult »

onetimeusename wrote: post #77
p0pcult wrote: post #16

Until there is actual evidence of actual pedophilia, this is just a retread of the 1980s satanic panic, being capitalized upon by the global fascist hard right, but this time conflating pedophilia with homosexuality and transsexuality. Is it tasteless? De gustibus non est disputandum. So much high fashion is stupid and provocative, imo. Is it pedophilia? No.

I am in favor of free speech. However, I can't help but think the mainstream internet activist left and right are engaged in a trolling war. This art is probably intended to be edgy, just like the faux-satanism fashion, it's meant to rub freedom of expression in the faces of certain people the in-crowd dislikes. All that is happening is mutual provocation and outrage. The same thing is happening on Twitter with perfo…

+1

Re: The Balenciaga Controversy

#85

Post by jimbob45 »

navjack27 wrote: post #43

To everyone commenting on this using the phrases: Seems bizarre Is bizarre Disturbing Seems concerning Fishy If someone shows you who they are believe them Shame Disgusting Literal demons Very unsettling Congratulations! You took the bait! Now you are participating in something called moral outrage. All you are doing is exactly what they want you to do. They being Balenciaga. You are free marketing.

Okay but when does a joke stop being a joke and become serious? If they were little Jewish kids tied up getting gassed and whipped, would you be willing to take the same tone?

I agree that marketing companies are well aware of shock value and use it from time to time but I would also assert that there's a large gray area where shock value becomes actual advocacy. I assert that that Balenciaga is within or past that gray area here.

Re: The Balenciaga Controversy

#86

Post by dsfyu404ed »

p0pcult wrote: post #82
ulfbert_inc wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean that shooting in which shooter was identified as a non-binary child of porn actor?

Sorry, which shooting was that? Hard to keep track here in the US. Are you attempting to imply that the "non-binary" or "porn" adjectives are relevant here? I may be going out on a limb here, but I am not sure that "non-binary" or "porn" people commit shootings at different rates than the rest of the population--do you have any evidence, rather than mere implication (if that is in fact what you are implying)?

>Sorry, which shooting was that? Hard to keep track here in the US.

The one you just cited, obviously.

The point is that you are either misinformed, speculating as it suits you, or lying to present that shooting as being motivated by moral panic type politics because it has since come out that the shooter did not subscribe to those beliefs.

And as much as it pains me to agree with you I concur that the shooter's gender and father's occupation are irrelevant.

Re: The Balenciaga Controversy

#87

Post by Loughla »

ulfbert_inc wrote: post #72
navjack27 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The theme is child abuse... Except not in the way that you're thinking about it... It's speaking out against it by showing the extreme depiction of it in a controlled art manner.

Art is meant to be beautiful, not to crush human spirit.

>Art is meant to be [. . .]

There are literally thousands of years of texts, debates, classes, hell, entire schools based around those first five words.

You simply cannot use them definitively. It's just not that simple.

Re: The Balenciaga Controversy

#88

Post by hairofadog »

incrudible wrote: post #70
KrugerDunnings wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought that fashion show was great, the empty pit of mud is just hysterical, it is a bit of a shock act. The hole thing just seems like an inside joke that some people took too serious. This is a common problem with communicating things ironically, someone is bound to not get it. Dunno what happened with the photo shoot but probably the director was like put some paper on the table, and someone was like what paper…

Quoted post unavailable.

How many incidents of “preschool leather daddy” have there been?

Re: The Balenciaga Controversy

#89

Post by progrus »

no-dr-onboard wrote: post #32
syrrim wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They filed a lawsuit claiming they didn't know about a single stray sheet of paper in one of the photos of the shoot, which looks entirely innocent on first inspection, but happens to be a court document for a famous child pornography suit. The existence of this document has been claimed by some observers (shoe, for one), to be the "smoking gun" proving that this is all satan worship rather than strange art. So it is…

I suppose the other thing to consider is the (art book in the photos) by an author who regularly depicts children naked, dismembered, and covered in blood. Please stop engineering doubt. It's absurd to pretend that there isn't a consistent theme of child abuse here. Not a claim on OP, but in general for this conversation: I find it intriguing that the level of grace and benefit that is given to the people involved in…

Yep, this insanity is only matched by the deference shown by e.g. the NYTimes to SBF. Compare how Apple is responding to Elon’s political-speech Jihad, vs. the complete lack of response to the child exploitation material that he has been purging from Twitter.

Wake up, you have been conditioned to accept a corrupt, misanthropic oligarchy.

Re: The Balenciaga Controversy

#90

Post by influx »

MuffinFlavored wrote: post #65
jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean the fashion show is just the typical haute couture nonsense. But I did look up the instagram profile you're talking about and saw one of the images in google's cache. I'll save other people the trouble of doing the same: it's a little kid taped into a chair with packing tape, including over their mouth, and they're wearing headphones connected to a laptop showing some sort of tv show. It's not CSAM but it cert…

> which I find incredibly poor taste. I wonder if that's the point. Fashion is all about pushing boundaries/generating buzz/publicity, right? I'm not saying I agree with it. I just don't think anybody would be talking about Balenciaga on HackerNews if they weren't being quite literally as edgy as possible/pushing the boundaries as hard as possible. If all of this ends up increasing sales/brand image in one twisted wa…

Pushing images of simulated child abuse to sell shoes should be beyond the limits of what society accepts.

Art can continue to push boundaries without kids.

It’s sick this even needs to be said.

Post reply on HN