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

131–140 of 166 posts

Re: The Balenciaga Controversy

#131

Post by dsfyu404ed »

p0pcult wrote: post #103
dsfyu404ed wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 gend…

Quoted post unavailable.

Yes, everyone knows how radicalization works. It's a well trodden path.

The problem here is that in two separate comment subthreads you are acting as though the purveyors of moral panic are radicalizing people to shoot up gay bars when in reality they're responsible for 0 of 2 if that is indeed their goal (which is an insane assumption).

You are trying to lay blame at the feet of people who are not responsible when it is known that there are specific others who are. Stop it. Stop lying. Or if you can't do that please live long enough to reap what you are sowing by doing your part to poison discourse with dishonesty.

Re: The Balenciaga Controversy

#132

Post by scruple »

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…

They can dress up what they're doing in whatever language they want, like calling it "art" or whatever, but at the end of the day this is a company whose business is selling clothing.

It strikes me as tasteless, or maybe even plain vulgar, to use imagery like this to try to sell clothing. Wasn't the first time, won't be the last, but I'm glad they're getting dragged for it all the same.

Re: The Balenciaga Controversy

#133

Post by mantas »

p0pcult wrote: post #24
mantas wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do we have rule of law though? E.g. certain Russian oligarchs winning lawsuits in West because of some legalese. It feels like „rule of law“ nowadays is used to silence the weak and doesn't apply to the powerful ones.

Because you allege that the rule of law is implemented imperfectly, does not invalidate the entire project of the rule of law.

A great tool can cause great damage when missused.

The main question is what's the tangent. And TBH it looks quite sad in the past decade.

Re: The Balenciaga Controversy

#134

Post by incrudible »

PuppyTailWags wrote: post #101
incrudible wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least one, but it's not something I'm willing to google to find out precisely how common it is.

I'm just pointing out that if you're too uncomfortable to educate yourself on the superficial level of googling if its actually real/a problem, you're likely unable to engage with this subject matter in a way that actually works to prevent child abuse. Yes, it's an ugly subject. Most children who are sexually abused are abused by their own family, not by random drag queens, not by whatever viral thing you heard but y…

This is a subtle form of whataboutism. First of all, this is not my personal activist cause. It's just something where I see people being naive (like the person I replied to) and I want to tell them to stop being naive.

If this was about child marriage, I'm sure many arguments along the lines of "it's part of their culture, we need to respect it" can be made. Indeed, such things are normalized in certain cultures. They are not even considered child abuse. I suspect we are early on in a trajectory where we are normalizing child abuse under the guise of supporting LGBT. What we decide now matters not so much to the children today, but in the indefinite future. Human morals appear to be quite flexible in that regard.

Re: The Balenciaga Controversy

#135

Post by woodruffw »

incrudible wrote: post #127
woodruffw wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, but what exactly do either drag queens or men in leather have to do with pedophilia? I'm not exactly a member of either community, but my understanding of drag is that it's performance art . My understanding of the leather community is that it's (1) a cornerstone of gay male culture, and (2) the polar opposite , in terms of sexual preferences, of the things people normally see as child-abuse-adjacent. You'…

Quoted post unavailable.

> which is a stated goal of certain queer activists.

None that I'm aware of. Given your own stated recalcitrance to actually search for resources and information about these things, I suggest (as gently as possible) that you're way off base here.

Re: The Balenciaga Controversy

#136

Post by naturedaily »

p0pcult wrote: post #121
mc32 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not necessarily but they would talk about "normalizing" and advancing certain unwelcome attitudes and behavior. Let's say they "recreated" a Srebernica scene -it would certainly be controversial. No one would accuse them of massacring the actors --less so if they used CGI --but never the less is it would be considered beyond the pale and would be denounced by virtually everyone and for good reason. It's gross. It's r…

My only horse in this particular race is that--repugnant or not--this ad campaign does not constitute pedophilia, grooming, pedophilia normalization, or the like, as is claimed (for example) in the sibling to your comment: >Just like the Balencia [sic] photos constitute pedophilia flirting with ritual abuse. Furthermore, that, these moral panics are dangerous and (specifically in this case), constitute attempts at st…

I agree that moral panics are undesirable. But by saying "these" you imply that this is all this is: a moral panic. You would have to be able to see this as more than just panic, or you will deem anyone in this debate under the spell of moral panic. You then cannot accept good faith on counterarguments. This is not pragmatic.

Yes, polarization is used to pit right against left. We could all join hands on this: It is repugnant to use vulnerable children for marketing that reeks of pedophilia. Do not focus on those screaming global cabal of satanist abusers, and certainly do not make it representative of the position of your political opposition.

How far are you willing to go to concede on this topic? Or should we let such politicized events destabilize us without a fight (through debate).

Re: The Balenciaga Controversy

#137

Post by p0pcult »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #131
p0pcult wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Yes, everyone knows how radicalization works. It's a well trodden path. The problem here is that in two separate comment subthreads you are acting as though the purveyors of moral panic are radicalizing people to shoot up gay bars when in reality they're responsible for 0 of 2 if that is indeed their goal (which is an insane assumption). You are trying to lay blame at the feet of people who are not responsible when i…

0 for 2 means theyre not successful, not that theyre not trying.

Re: The Balenciaga Controversy

#138

Post by [deleted] »

donkeyd wrote: post #49
thepasswordis wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Watch the rest of the video. Eventually the actors are all walking around wearing child carriers containing dolls.

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.

[deleted]

Re: The Balenciaga Controversy

#139

Post by incrudible »

woodruffw wrote: post #135
incrudible wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

> which is a stated goal of certain queer activists. None that I'm aware of. Given your own stated recalcitrance to actually search for resources and information about these things, I suggest (as gently as possible) that you're way off base here.

I gave a Youtube link in the opening comment, I suggest you watch it.

Re: The Balenciaga Controversy

#140

Post by [deleted] »

WastingMyTime89 wrote: post #83
thepasswordis wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN