5 ms·

Are you implying Balenciaga is .. trafficking children or making child porn or something? Not sure what you mean by "the person we should be worried about." My

Are you implying Balenciaga is .. trafficking children or making child porn or something? Not sure what you mean by "the person we should be worried about." My understanding is they made an offensive photoshoot using children but I wasn't aware of any sexual abuse allegations. I'm aware of the court opinion on the blanket and the sexually suggestive stuffed animals. It's inflammatory, sure, but there's definitely a case that it's artistic as well.

throwawaydad12 4y ago
No abuse that I've heard of. But very offensive. Look further (not at work). It's too gross to describe on HN. I'm pretty strong on free speech myself. But if you want to repress awful stuff, Musk is not the place to start. And the narrative that he's somehow lowering the level of discourse on Twitter is absurd.
- User23 4y ago
  For added weirdness “ba len ci aga” is Latin for “do what you want.” See for yourself with Google translate. It could also be translated as the more familiar “do what thou wilt,” a rather infamous occult credo.
  - whateveracct 4y ago
    This is started to smell like Q-adjacent nonsense to me
    - feet 4y ago
      That's basically what it is
  - axlee 4y ago
    The company was founded more than a century ago by a spanish prodigy named Cristobal Balenciaga...stop with the conspirationist nonsense. Not here.
    - User23 4y ago
      Don't get so worked up, it's just a funny[1] coincidence. Noticing funny patterns is definitely a thing hackers do my friend. It's taking them too seriously that's a problem, so don't do that! [1] Weird, not haha.
      - whateveracct 4y ago
        Can't help but think of that Sartre quote about arguing with people in Bad Faith.
        User23 4y ago
        You’ll need to do some introspection to find any. I haven’t argued anything at all, and certainly not in bad faith. I simply presented a factual and amusing linguistic coincidence. Whatever conclusions you choose to draw from that fact are your own and tell us only about you.
    - whateveracct 4y ago
      Sadly it is commonplace here (HN). You can find comments on HM spouting Tucker Carlson and co's outrage on a daily basis. I do not envy dang's job. Moderating dog whistles at-scale is an unsolved problem. Quick, Paul Graham, seize the opportunity to change the world!!
- whateveracct 4y ago
  I've seen it. It's a child with one of their stuffed animal purses in BDSM gear. And there's some wine in a shot. And there's text for a SCOTUS ruling that child pornography is not protected speech. I'm honestly not seeing what's so grotesque about it all? Feels tame as far as fashion stuff goes. Wouldn't bat an eye in the '90s.
  - throwawaydad12 4y ago
    You haven't reached the bottom yet. Keep going until you hit Borremans. It's not 4chan, but I'm not listening to these people on the subject of standards and practices.
    - whateveracct 4y ago
      I looked up Borremans because I'd never heard of him but apparently a book of his work in the photo shoot is some sort pedophilic "code"? Or something like that? What exactly is the issue with his work? That it depicts nude (but not sexualized as far as Incould find) children? And the children aren't real models afaict either. I like what I see of his work. Reminds of Francis Bacon. Deeply human art. There's something about that kind of figure work that speaks to the soul. So yeah, not sure why this artist is "the bottom."
  - esparrohack 4y ago
    I think it's really creepy that you don't see anything wrong with a child in BDSM gear. And alcohol. That's actually sadism. I dunno, maybe you just don't get it. Do you know what sadism is? On the other hand, I've yet to hear a convincing argument as to why it shouldn't bother me other than "oh just get over it it's not that bad", which isn't working with me, since I have no petty bourgeois sensibilities, and I know what I'm doing when it comes to art. Why should I be cool with sadism?
    - RustLove 4y ago
      I thought the ad was creepy and weird, but you're lying here. There was no " child in BDSM gear" in the photo. Why lie to make a point? That's creepy and weird, too
- whateveracct 4y ago
  Going further, it feels like the ad campaign did contain some social commentary about the sex-posi, BDSM-posi, generally more adult world children have to navigate. The fact that people find it uncomfortable feels like the point. But as a society, can art and images only be taken literally and autobiographically now? That feels like old Christian ways when Jesus could not be depicted (or at least the art history part of my brain thinks of that)
GauntletWizard 4y ago
And this gets to the heart of the problem. Twitter users think that because it was parody, the photoshoot was neither child pornography nor sexually abusive. Human beings recognize that it may have been parody but it was still child pornography and sexually abusive. It introduced, nay, immersed children in those scenes and behaviors.
- whateveracct 4y ago
  But how was it abusive exactly? Child actors aren't allowed to be photographed in adult contexts anymore? I assume their parent(s) were present and involved and therefore it probably wasn't unsafe. Unless it's abuse by osmosis of their surroundings? Feels like Nathan Fielder's use of child actors was more offensive than this ad campaign and that was fine.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
whateveracct 4y ago
Replying to my own comment to say that I've spent my evening reading up on the controversy, looking at the ads, reading the SCOTUS decision, studying Borremans. I'm pretty sure this is just a more digestible, mainstream version of the Wayfair human trafficking conspiracy theory.

throwawaydad12 4y ago

No abuse that I've heard of. But very offensive. Look further (not at work). It's too gross to describe on HN. I'm pretty strong on free speech myself. But if you want to repress awful stuff, Musk is not the place to start. And the narrative that he's somehow lowering the level of discourse on Twitter is absurd.

User23 4y ago
For added weirdness “ba len ci aga” is Latin for “do what you want.” See for yourself with Google translate. It could also be translated as the more familiar “do what thou wilt,” a rather infamous occult credo.
- whateveracct 4y ago
  This is started to smell like Q-adjacent nonsense to me
  - feet 4y ago
    That's basically what it is
- axlee 4y ago
  The company was founded more than a century ago by a spanish prodigy named Cristobal Balenciaga...stop with the conspirationist nonsense. Not here.
  - User23 4y ago
    Don't get so worked up, it's just a funny[1] coincidence. Noticing funny patterns is definitely a thing hackers do my friend. It's taking them too seriously that's a problem, so don't do that! [1] Weird, not haha.
    - whateveracct 4y ago
      Can't help but think of that Sartre quote about arguing with people in Bad Faith.
      - User23 4y ago
        You’ll need to do some introspection to find any. I haven’t argued anything at all, and certainly not in bad faith. I simply presented a factual and amusing linguistic coincidence. Whatever conclusions you choose to draw from that fact are your own and tell us only about you.
  - whateveracct 4y ago
    Sadly it is commonplace here (HN). You can find comments on HM spouting Tucker Carlson and co's outrage on a daily basis. I do not envy dang's job. Moderating dog whistles at-scale is an unsolved problem. Quick, Paul Graham, seize the opportunity to change the world!!
whateveracct 4y ago
I've seen it. It's a child with one of their stuffed animal purses in BDSM gear. And there's some wine in a shot. And there's text for a SCOTUS ruling that child pornography is not protected speech. I'm honestly not seeing what's so grotesque about it all? Feels tame as far as fashion stuff goes. Wouldn't bat an eye in the '90s.
- throwawaydad12 4y ago
  You haven't reached the bottom yet. Keep going until you hit Borremans. It's not 4chan, but I'm not listening to these people on the subject of standards and practices.
  - whateveracct 4y ago
    I looked up Borremans because I'd never heard of him but apparently a book of his work in the photo shoot is some sort pedophilic "code"? Or something like that? What exactly is the issue with his work? That it depicts nude (but not sexualized as far as Incould find) children? And the children aren't real models afaict either. I like what I see of his work. Reminds of Francis Bacon. Deeply human art. There's something about that kind of figure work that speaks to the soul. So yeah, not sure why this artist is "the bottom."
- esparrohack 4y ago
  I think it's really creepy that you don't see anything wrong with a child in BDSM gear. And alcohol. That's actually sadism. I dunno, maybe you just don't get it. Do you know what sadism is? On the other hand, I've yet to hear a convincing argument as to why it shouldn't bother me other than "oh just get over it it's not that bad", which isn't working with me, since I have no petty bourgeois sensibilities, and I know what I'm doing when it comes to art. Why should I be cool with sadism?
  - RustLove 4y ago
    I thought the ad was creepy and weird, but you're lying here. There was no " child in BDSM gear" in the photo. Why lie to make a point? That's creepy and weird, too
whateveracct 4y ago
Going further, it feels like the ad campaign did contain some social commentary about the sex-posi, BDSM-posi, generally more adult world children have to navigate. The fact that people find it uncomfortable feels like the point. But as a society, can art and images only be taken literally and autobiographically now? That feels like old Christian ways when Jesus could not be depicted (or at least the art history part of my brain thinks of that)

GauntletWizard 4y ago

And this gets to the heart of the problem. Twitter users think that because it was parody, the photoshoot was neither child pornography nor sexually abusive. Human beings recognize that it may have been parody but it was still child pornography and sexually abusive. It introduced, nay, immersed children in those scenes and behaviors.

whateveracct 4y ago
But how was it abusive exactly? Child actors aren't allowed to be photographed in adult contexts anymore? I assume their parent(s) were present and involved and therefore it probably wasn't unsafe. Unless it's abuse by osmosis of their surroundings? Feels like Nathan Fielder's use of child actors was more offensive than this ad campaign and that was fine.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

whateveracct 4y ago

Replying to my own comment to say that I've spent my evening reading up on the controversy, looking at the ads, reading the SCOTUS decision, studying Borremans. I'm pretty sure this is just a more digestible, mainstream version of the Wayfair human trafficking conspiracy theory.