Vogue Czechoslovakia October 2024 : Nathy Peluso by Florian & Sebastian

Did she something on her face? she looks different
 
I don't want to ask who... but WHO? I looked at her discography on Wikipedia to see if she's even charted on the Czech or Slovak charts and... it doesn't appear so. Is this cover as random as it seems to be, or am I missing something logical?
 
^I like Nathy but yeah, feels extremely random... then again so do plenty covers nowadays

Also can a mod edit the title please, there's other covers:



 

VOGUE CZECHOSLOVAKIA OCTOBER 2024

IMG_7929.jpeg
Photographer: The Morelli Brothers
Styling: Bradley Kenneth
Hair: Dimitris Giannetos
Makeup: Loftjet
Model: Delilah Belle Hamlin
(thelionsmanagement.com)
IMG_7930.jpeg

IMG_7931.jpeg
IMG_7932.jpeg
IMG_7933.jpeg
IMG_7934.jpeg
IMG_7935.jpeg
IMG_7936.jpeg
IMG_7937.jpeg
IMG_7938.jpeg
IMG_7939.jpeg
 
Oh, an openly terf on the cover. And JK saying they are silenced by "sPeAkInG tHe tHrUtH"
Women get to have opinions. They get to have opinions you or I might disagree with. They get to be wrong. They get to be uninformed. They get to be arseholes.

But they get to have their voice and not be silenced.

Look back at any important point in women's history, and there's always a social push to silence them. The people who thought women having the vote was 'unnatural' had a lot of support. Those people probably believed themselves to be in the right.

When history gets written, 'the right thing to do' in any particular moment is often not what the masses chose to do at the time.

It's a hard question to answer, because it's hard for people to separate themselves from the constant influence of content that's deliberately designed to mainline into your brain - but if social media didn't tell you what to think and what to say, what would anyone's approach be to any of these topics? Would there be a greater ability to cope with differing opinions?

Because there are nearly six billion people in the world, and all of them have a different opinion on things. Even from a pragmatic viewpoint, it would be easier to develop ways of coping with the reality of people having varied opinions than it is to wage internet war on everyone that's labelled as thinking in the 'wrong' way.
 
Women get to have opinions. They get to have opinions you or I might disagree with. They get to be wrong. They get to be uninformed. They get to be arseholes.

But they get to have their voice and not be silenced.

Look back at any important point in women's history, and there's always a social push to silence them. The people who thought women having the vote was 'unnatural' had a lot of support. Those people probably believed themselves to be in the right.

When history gets written, 'the right thing to do' in any particular moment is often not what the masses chose to do at the time.

It's a hard question to answer, because it's hard for people to separate themselves from the constant influence of content that's deliberately designed to mainline into your brain - but if social media didn't tell you what to think and what to say, what would anyone's approach be to any of these topics? Would there be a greater ability to cope with differing opinions?

Because there are nearly six billion people in the world, and all of them have a different opinion on things. Even from a pragmatic viewpoint, it would be easier to develop ways of coping with the reality of people having varied opinions than it is to wage internet war on everyone that's labelled as thinking in the 'wrong' way.
There is 8 billion people in the world hun!
 
It's a good job I'm not in charge of the world economy, being out by a few billion people or two. Just a minor miscalculation.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

New Posts

Forum Statistics

Threads
212,049
Messages
15,170,898
Members
85,879
Latest member
flogomet
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "058526dd2635cb6818386bfd373b82a4"
<-- Admiral -->