Hacker News Reader

Comment by whateveracct | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

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.

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.

This is started to smell like Q-adjacent nonsense to me

That's basically what it is

The company was founded more than a century ago by a spanish prodigy named Cristobal Balenciaga...stop with the conspirationist nonsense. Not here.

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!!

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.

Can't help but think of that Sartre quote about arguing with people in Bad Faith.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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?

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

I made a mistake but everyone knows what picture I'm talking about. It's not a lie.

So it was a child carrying a doll that had BDSM gear. But that's funny cus if the girl was the one in BDSM gear, that would make it wrong? Is that the line?

I'm curious why, if you believed you made a mistake, you didn't edit your comment at the time to avoid propagating misinformation (as the 2 hour edit window was still open when you made this response acknowledging it as a mistake)?

I personally am not familiar with this photo and don't really want to see it, so yes, your comment could have mislead me.

There's no ulterior motive. I just messed up. I fixed it as soon as I got called out on it without objection and I left it there so people can see what the issue was.

If you are going to participate in this discussion, you need to keep up. You're attributing malice where there is none. That means you have to see the picture.

I'm not saying you can't say anything, just that I'm going to dismiss you out of hand.

The child was next to some glasses of wine. Why does that make you clutch pearls exactly?

Have you seen Big Daddy? The Adam Sandler film? Is that also on this level? Feels like the same thing. Child actors in an adult piece of media with sexual and violent and otherwise adult themes.

The thing is I just don't care how you feel. You haven't explained how the kid can consent to this photo shoot or why it isn't sexual abuse.

I want to know if you think it's ok if the kid wears BDSM gear. Yes? No?

Why do you want to know that when you've acknowledged in a parallel thread that that wasn't what happened? It's hard for me to read this any other way than a deflection so that you can discuss a different set of events, which didn't happen, where you feel your arguments would fair better.

Given that we're already talking about a hot-button issue which is the subject of conspiracy theories, that seems dangerous.

Yeah, you're trying to catch me on a typo, but it's not gonna work cus I already acknowledged it.

I do know I hit a nerve with that particular scenario. I got all I wanted. Ok, so let's just move on. Let's get to the fun stuff.

So the line stopped at her wearing the BDSM gear. Why? Why not cross that line? Why is it ok for the bear to wear BDSM gear and for her not to?

I misunderstood. I thought we were having a discussion, but I can see you're looking to deliver a monologue. I'll leave you to it.

Lol. All I did was respond to the Adam Sandler move with my own. I'm just trying to speed this up and get to the good stuff already.

Apparently, if it was the kid wearing the BDSM gear, it wouldn't feel like the same thing. It would feel wrong.

Of course, if you, or anyone reading this feels different, speak out.

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)

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com