Model Behavior (PLEASE READ POST #1 BEFORE POSTING)

[Benn98]

Maybe its only my thought but it's kinda weird because Stefano hasnt rant about this act in his instagram account.

Twist! Knowing him, he's have cackled for cutting the guy with his 1001 emojis. I don't know what to believe anymore, but it may well be an elaborate hoax. I wouldn't put it past Stefano Gabbana!

 

[lavender]

I honestly thought it was staged when I first saw it on Instagram. Leave it to D&G to concoct some kind of fake protest to add to their mess of a show.

 

[eugenius]

This young man's protest @ the D+G show seems rather silly. I bet his hundreds and thousands of IG followers probably don't care about old guys like Dolce & Gabbana, and I bet that people who do care about Dolce & Gabbana probably don't keep up w/ social media stars who still get carded. But God bless him for speaking up, regardless.

 

[Mea Culpa]

I bet his hundreds and thousands of IG followers probably don't care about old guys like Dolce & Gabbana, and I bet that people who do care about Dolce & Gabbana probably don't keep up w/ social media stars who still get carded. But God bless him for speaking up, regardless.

So true...

 

[fashionista-ta]

Yet you seem so convinced on his sincerity...how do you know that, as well?

By reading his own words, and taking them at face value vs. projecting my own assumptions onto him.

As I read what he says, his primary motivation was thinking about civil rights history. The bus boycott was far more serious than my boycotting Chik-fil-a and Walmart. That's easy ... there are other things to eat and other stores to shop at. The people who participated in the bus boycott by and large had no alternative but their own blistered feet.

I find it quite interesting that instead of believing that he remembers that history and takes it seriously, instead people are concocting elaborate conspiracy theories. So tFS.

 

[readings]

Actually, I don't really care about whether he is sincere or not, as long as his motivations are in the right place. I can only be to happy when anyone has the courage, in today's world, to speak up against these giants (industrial, political...) who feed off discrimination, racism, inequalities, etc.

And if HE is full of himself I don't know what are Dolce & Gabanna...

 

[Littleathquakes]

By reading his own words, and taking them at face value vs. projecting my own assumptions onto him.

As I read what he says, his primary motivation was thinking about civil rights history. The bus boycott was far more serious than my boycotting Chik-fil-a and Walmart. That's easy ... there are other things to eat and other stores to shop at. The people who participated in the bus boycott by and large had no alternative but their own blistered feet.

I find it quite interesting that instead of believing that he remembers that history and takes it seriously, instead people are concocting elaborate conspiracy theories. So tFS.

Seems a bit presumptuous of you to label it as projecting when it is in fact merely questioning his motivation. D&G's marketing was in response to the liberal media basically attacking them for dressing the First Lady of the USA. It was indeed trolling the people who were pushing for boycotting their business - and boycotts have been happening way before the Civil rights movement. Their use of the term boycott had nothing to do with the civil rights movement. This young man took it upon himself to connect the boycott term with civil rights and the Trump administration. It's like people who think slavery happened only in the US when in fact slavery existed prior to the US and it still continues in other regions of the world. So when someone uses the word slavery it may not be in direct association with what happened in American history.

 

[EdithV]

It would seem he's convinced himself that people are just jealous of him rather than shocked by his immaturity. He's humiliating himself and the brand, I'm surprised no one close to the situation has said anything.

Oh this was meant to be about Stefano not the model, opps

 

[fashionista-ta]

Seems a bit presumptuous of you to label it as projecting when it is in fact merely questioning his motivation. D&G's marketing was in response to the liberal media basically attacking them for dressing the First Lady of the USA. It was indeed trolling the people who were pushing for boycotting their business - and boycotts have been happening way before the Civil rights movement. Their use of the term boycott had nothing to do with the civil rights movement. This young man took it upon himself to connect the boycott term with civil rights and the Trump administration. It's like people who think slavery happened only in the US when in fact slavery existed prior to the US and it still continues in other regions of the world. So when someone uses the word slavery it may not be in direct association with what happened in American history.

No, what was said that I responded to was quite a bit beyond 'merely questioning his motivation.' What was said was

He was just hungry for attention as millenials and bloggers usually are. He's too full of himself to realize that, it's was never about politics but about his narcissism.

This is not at all a question, but a statement.

My point is this. You may believe the term 'boycott' has nothing to do with the civil rights movement. That is your perspective. For this young man, 'boycott' is an integral part of civil rights history. That is his perspective, and I call it valid. I'm glad he did what he did, and said what he said. Because what he's drawing attention to is something I believe deserves serious thought, because the past isn't over, its ugly legacy lives on. And I don't think it's at all a shame that it happened at a Dolce & Gabbana show, regressive as they are.

 

[Mea Culpa]

Seems a bit presumptuous of you to label it as projecting when it is in fact merely questioning his motivation. D&G's marketing was in response to the liberal media basically attacking them for dressing the First Lady of the USA. It was indeed trolling the people who were pushing for boycotting their business - and boycotts have been happening way before the Civil rights movement. Their use of the term boycott had nothing to do with the civil rights movement. This young man took it upon himself to connect the boycott term with civil rights and the Trump administration. It's like people who think slavery happened only in the US when in fact slavery existed prior to the US and it still continues in other regions of the world. So when someone uses the word slavery it may not be in direct association with what happened in American history.

Oh FFS ... he's a young black man from the South, he was practically born with a target on his back, he grew up breathing oppression... boycotting was indeed a part of the civil rights movement, nobody is claiming that's when it was invented or that is the only cause for it - same with slavery... (**Edited**) Stefano is in a position of relative power/wealth and has thumbed his nose at people critical of his support of the Trumps (even if it is just clothes) and is also trivializing what boycotts are traditionally about... Is the math really THAT hard?!?!?

D&G had an opportunity and they missed it... instead of a big f*ck you to the critics they could have approached it from an "all women deserve to feel beautiful and Melania is no exception.." or some such thing, there's always a way to spin it, and potentially avoided *some* of the backlash... instead Stefano decided to act like a child...

 

[Littleathquakes]

No, what was said that I responded to was quite a bit beyond 'merely questioning his motivation.' What was said was



This is not at all a question, but a statement.

My point is this. You may believe the term 'boycott' has nothing to do with the civil rights movement. That is your perspective. For this young man, 'boycott' is an integral part of civil rights history. That is his perspective, and I call it valid. I'm glad he did what he did, and said what he said. Because what he's drawing attention to is something I believe deserves serious thought, because the past isn't over, its ugly legacy lives on. And I don't think it's at all a shame that it happened at a Dolce & Gabbana show, regressive as they are.

That is not just my perspective. the fact is this: D&G released t shirts with the word boycott on them in response to the criticisms they were receiving. This model chose to then somehow equate that term with civil rights and the current political atmosphere at the show. the two had nothing in common. D&G was simply not mocking the civil rights movement. the model was (mis)interpreting that. that is where I'm seeing the attention grabbing vs sincere political action. You can't just cherry pick a word and then go on about protesting it. his calling attention to something that is important to him (and you) is not the issue that I am having problems agreeing with. It's where he chose to do it and his disjointed reasoning for doing so.

 

[Littleathquakes]

... boycotting was indeed a part of the civil rights movement, nobody is claiming that's when it was invented or that is the only cause for it -

Correct - no one is claiming that that was when the word was invented. But what is being associated with that word boycott by this model is the civil rights movement when D&G is neither an American brand nor did they make any mockery or association with civil rights when they used the word boycott. How is he making that connection?! He said he googled D&G and that they dressed the First Lady of America who is married to Trump. He is the one connecting those events back to D&G and the civil rights movement. D&G were not.

 

[BetteT]

Moderators' Note:

Please be very careful in discussing this topic ... it's very likely to lead to talk about politics, which is not allowed on the Fashion Spot. Keep it about fashion and the people involved in this situation.

But ... do not make any comments regarding the current political scene in the U.S. and especially do not make negative remarks about supporters of either political view point.

Thanks for your cooperation!

 

[anlabe32]

He's too full of himself to realize that, it's was never about politics but about his narcissism.

The only ones full of themselves are the guys from D&G.

If he did it at any other show I would've found it annoying but I want as much negative publicity for D&G as possible.

 

[TREVOFASHIONISTO]

That is not just my perspective. the fact is this: D&G released t shirts with the word boycott on them in response to the criticisms they were receiving. This model chose to then somehow equate that term with civil rights and the current political atmosphere at the show. the two had nothing in common. D&G was simply not mocking the civil rights movement. the model was (mis)interpreting that. that is where I'm seeing the attention grabbing vs sincere political action. You can't just cherry pick a word and then go on about protesting it. his calling attention to something that is important to him (and you) is not the issue that I am having problems agreeing with. It's where he chose to do it and his disjointed reasoning for doing so.

Im not understanding what is wrong with someone associating a word with their history and how it relates to them. All of D&G's recent bad press has a lot to do with who the political atmosphere right and who theyre choosing to support and how theyre going about it defending themselves. It isnt a light joke to a lot of people in America. I dont think its that far of a reach for Raury to associate that t-shirt in relations to civil rights movement. The protests are still happening all over the world over similar social injustices that happened less than 100 years ago.

 

[Littleathquakes]

Im not understanding what is wrong with someone associating a word with their history and how it relates to them. All of D&G's recent bad press has a lot to do with who the political atmosphere right and who theyre choosing to support and how theyre going about it defending themselves. It isnt a light joke to a lot of people in America. I dont think its that far of a reach for Raury to associate that t-shirt in relations to civil rights movement. The protests are still happening all over the world over similar social injustices that happened less than 100 years ago.

D&G aren't the first and only ones to dress the FLOTUS. Her inauguration outfit was done by Ralph Lauren. Do you remember the hashtags that they received? #boycottralphlauren. That use of the word then is the same as D&G's use when they clapped back. Both times, the use of that word was simply saying don't purchase their stuff. There was no historical ties to it. Now, he can certainly try to connect the two, as he's done. I'm not saying he doesn't have that right. I just don't agree with it.

 

[Benn98]

Miranda Kerr gives up $11m in jewellery

Miranda Kerr had been keeping the jewellery in a Los Angeles safe deposit box.

Bradley Hope
Dow Jones
10:31AM June 27, 2017

Australian model Miranda Kerr has handed over $US8.1 million ($A10.7m) worth of jewellery to the US Justice Department a week after lawsuits said it was purchased for her by Malaysian financier Jho Low with allegedly misappropriated funds, according to her spokesman.

Ms Kerr transferred the gifts on Friday to government agents from her safe-deposit box in Los Angeles, the spokesman said.

“From the start of the inquiry, Miranda Kerr co-operated fully and pledged to turn over the gifts of jewellery to the government,†he said. “Ms Kerr will continue to assist with the inquiry in any way she can.â€

Ms Kerr isn’t a defendant in the lawsuits.

The Justice Department declined to comment.

The jewellery is among more than $US1.7 billion worth of assets the Justice Department seeks; the assets also include a $US250 million yacht, stakes in companies and luxury real estate in London, New York and Los Angeles.

1MDB has denied any wrongdoing and said it has found no evidence any of its money was misappropriated. The fund has pledged to co-operate with any lawful investigation. Malaysia has closed all but one of its domestic investigations into 1MDB with no wrongdoing found.

Mr Low, who hasn’t been accused of a crime, said in a statement after the latest asset forfeiture cases were filed that the US government’s “latest move continues its inappropriate efforts to seize assets despite not having proven that any improprieties have occurred.†He has pledged to fight the lawsuits.

Ms Kerr dated Mr. Low for about a year in 2014, according to a person familiar with the matter. The Justice Department says that during that time he gave her four gifts of jewellery. Ms Kerr was married last month to Snap co-founder Evan Spiegel.

Mr Low bought one of the pieces, a 11.72 carat, heart-shaped diamond pendant, as a Valentine’s Day gift for Ms Kerr from the well-known jeweller Lorraine Schwartz, the civil forfeiture complaint says.

On January 29, 2014, he texted Ms Schwartz to ask about a heart-shaped necklace, adding that he had a budget of $US1 million to $US2 million and that “(s) ize matters,†the complaint says. The final cost was $US1.29 million ($A1.7m), it said.

He also gave her an 8.88-carat diamond pendant worth $US3.8 million ($A5m), the complaint says.

Earlier this month, a spokesman for actor Leonardo DiCaprio said Mr DiCaprio had turned over artwork gifted to him by Mr Low, alleged gifts described in one of the Justice Department lawsuits.

Source: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/miranda-kerr-hands-nearly-11m-in-jewellery-to-us-investigators/news-story/b6b18bf5d159b46812cc83000d494bdd

 

[kokobombon]

gifts or "payment"? ink:

 

[dsamg]

gifts or "payment"? ink:

Definitely the latter. Man she is still the worst.

 

[Benn98]

gifts or "payment"? ink:

That's what I was thinking as well! Have you seen the guy? Google him! And now she's married to another millionaire. At least he's somewhat handsome....

I'm really quite shocked to discover this. This guy also 'gifted' Marlon Brando's Oscar and $13 million worth of art to Leonardo DiCaprio, who will be handing everything over. God knows what role Leo played in all this.....procurer?