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

151–160 of 166 posts

Re: The Balenciaga Controversy

#151

Post by Vecr »

rabite wrote: post #8
claudiawerner wrote: post #5

>One of them seems to show, albeit in an obscured way, text from a Supreme Court decision related to the PROTECT Act, a 2003 federal law that states child pornography is not protected by free speech. This is not the whole truth; it's an excerpt from Ashcroft vs Free Speech Coalition, which was a case in which it was decided that fictional depictions of minors that don't exist nude or engaged in sexual acts is protect…

You're leaving out all the photos on Lotta Volkova's Instagram. These are not a "nothingburger" it is obviously the product of a sick mind that likes to imply the sexual suffering and physical injury of children. https://nitter.net/jakeshieldsajj/status/1597051525830152192...

Removed, but here's an archive link: https://archive.ph/OpZDB

Re: The Balenciaga Controversy

#152

Post by p0pcult »

mantas wrote: post #133
p0pcult wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

...which is an indictment of the misuse, not the tool. Or do we get rid of everything that "can cause great damage"?

Re: The Balenciaga Controversy

#153

Post by chrischen »

sakopov wrote: post #33
chrischen wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly think this is going a little too far. The photographer also stated that they were not even involved with the photo with the court case documents... Everyone is quick to judge but everyone is culpable for something bad... This is like China's internet mob justice and "human flesh search" days all over again. Mob justice on the random people hired to do this is irresponsible. Target the beneficial owners...…

> Mob justice on the random people hired to do this is irresponsible. So, here's a random person hired to do this shoot boasting about it on their Instagram page. [1] I don't even know what angle you can come at this to make this seem normal. [1] https://twitter.com/curioslight/status/1596822351668469762

Who is the random person hired to photograph here? What am I looking at here? If she was significant then why didn’t her countless followers do anything before? Are they culpable?

Re: The Balenciaga Controversy

#154

Post by [deleted] »

chownie wrote: post #147
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?

A false narrative which doesn't pass the sniff test. Non-binary according to the shooter's attorney but referred to as "he" by his father. Neighbours also asserted that the shooter frequently used homophobic slurs and didn't identify as non binary at any point in the past.

[deleted]

Re: The Balenciaga Controversy

#156

Post by orwin »

lordfrito wrote: post #118
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.

Looked for the photos, yikes. There's a reason people look at this stuff and get morally outraged. It is absolutely outrageous. I guess this is what they set out to do. Mission accomplished. Great. Fooled me again! They got free marketing and I've lost a little more faith in humanity. If you've experienced this kind of abuse, this kind of stuff is beyond "triggering". "Feels" are supposed to matter, right? I guess wh…

Nah, I went to an old slaughterhouse turned temporary art gallery when I was like ten (and my brother 8), I saw more disturbing art than that.

I also was into the 'danses macabres' at some point and went in four different museum to appreciate the art, in three different countries. I kinda like those photographies, they're not great art, but one or two could have their place in a museum (art show called 'danses macabres et capitalisme' could probably be done. Film/tv show extracts could be added)

Re: The Balenciaga Controversy

#157

Post by PuppyTailWags »

incrudible wrote: post #148
PuppyTailWags wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not whataboutism, it's pointing out that you're making some suspected wild trajectory of child abuse when actual child abuse currently exists in a widespread, normalized fashion. There's no need to invent gay people clandestinely abusing children as if straight people don't openly abuse children already. Like I said, marrying underage children is legal, and it certainly isn't the lgbtq people that put that law t…

We're entering not-so-subtle whataboutism territory here. Which culture has normalized child marriage? Certainly not mainstream American culture. Even if it's technically legal under certain circumstances, it's exceptionally rare.

It's not just technically legal under certain circumstances. It's explicitly legal. Only 7 states enforce adult marriage, with thousands of child marriages occurring each year. This certainly occurs more often than that viral thing you were too grossed out to google, and frankly attributing online unsubstantiated rumors about lgbtq people, when literal child marriages are happening in the thousands among straight people, is frankly the whataboutism here.

Re: The Balenciaga Controversy

#158

Post by donkeyd »

s0ph0n wrote: post #146
thepasswordis wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Well done on implying someone not agreeing with you on the moral value of carrying dolls in a fashion show This is not fair. The original post was about the inappropriate use of children in a marketing campaign. Balenciaga claims they didn't know the nature of the photoshoot. The video I linked provides context demonstrating that balenciaga continued the same theme in their fashion show. "Why is this fashion show ba…

Your slippery slope logical fallacies has no merit. There were no children being abused in the Balenciaga video you posted. >These seem to be adults dressed as literal demons This would imply you believe in demons, which are things that do not exist in the real world. You might believe they exist due to your moral upbringing but just because you were brainwashed (abused) as a child, doesnt mean every one is a child a…

> Lotta Volkova artwork is definitely sordid but so is a lot of art. You don't have to like it or even look.

Exactly. I feel like art and its purpose have been lost in recent years. Art is supposed to make people think or feel. Paintings of beheadings in museums don't make people think about beheading people, nor do they make people happy. They make people think about the atrociousness of history and hopefully about not wanting to repeat it.

My (non religious) dad recently argued that music that implies rape or child abuse shouldn't be broadcast on the radio, because it's wrong. I asked whether any movie showing violence, abuse and rape should also not be played on TV or in cinema. I also explained that both are art forms and aren't depictions of things the singers or actors want to do in real life, per se (we all know there are exceptions). He argued this, however, because he heard the argument from some radio DJs.

It'll be a sad day when we ban everything we don't like to see or hear, because that's when we forget those things exist and stop doing anything against it.

Re: The Balenciaga Controversy

#159

Post by chrischen »

badcppdev wrote: post #54
chrischen wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly think this is going a little too far. The photographer also stated that they were not even involved with the photo with the court case documents... Everyone is quick to judge but everyone is culpable for something bad... This is like China's internet mob justice and "human flesh search" days all over again. Mob justice on the random people hired to do this is irresponsible. Target the beneficial owners...…

The photographer was hired to do a job and he did it. I doubt his reputation will be damaged by this. Nevertheless I think he showed poor judgement. I doubt he could pretend that he didn't know that the teddy bears were sexually themed as BDSM styling is not that obscure. And it really feels to me that he should be paying attention to what he is photographing. So I stand by my point that I hope that other professiona…

The photographer literally posted on instagram saying they had to say something because they were receiving death threats... Imagine getting death threats for a photo of a child holding a banana because some people in the world happen to be fruit-sexuals and like to have sex with fruits, only to be overcome by shame and trying to deflect it onto someone else when seeing their banana butt plug in the hands of an innocent child.

Re: The Balenciaga Controversy

#160

Post by mantas »

p0pcult wrote: post #152
mantas wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

...which is an indictment of the misuse, not the tool. Or do we get rid of everything that "can cause great damage"?

Or label was stolen and plastered on a fake similar looking tool.

Maybe it needs tear down and rebuilding from scratch?

Post reply on HN