I have just one big complain, why do Chinese kill off at least one main char or even whole main cast in BL series,…
I mean generally speaking chinese go the traditional route for a drama and are closer to killing of main /romantic/ character. And deliver true emotions before. Mmmm, but i don't think they do it always, look revenged love, and that is really not ALL. Even ABO Desire i don't exxpect sad end (no main leads deaths at least).
So I can at least say I AM looking forward to the permanent marking… The other one is going to be such a pain 😞 (but I am looking forward to it anyway). As far as looking forward goes, this week is the main CP’s week.
And before we go, let me just praise them for how they developed and corrected the appearance of the second couple in this series. When readers described them at the beginning, I was truly worried. However, now I can calmly say I’m fine with it. Even though the second couple only appeared together again in the last episode, they worked magic with what they were given, and I’m grateful for it. Do I want more? Yes. But it’s no longer something to complain about — it’s something to praise, which I’m giving to them right now.
Nope. This is a wuxia drama with straight romance as side stories. The ML has 2nd FL as his love interest. It…
Thanks for clarifying where you’re coming from — I do appreciate the distinction you’re making between pluralistic systems shaped by history and a one-size-fits-all liberal model.
I don’t think our disagreement is just about paternalism vs. non-paternalism, though. For me, it’s less about preferring one template of government and more about whether any policy, in any system, unnecessarily limits people’s freedom or dignity. That concern isn’t erased by context — it’s part of what keeps discussion honest.
Pluralism doesn’t have to mean we stay silent about policies that create avoidable harm or that suppress harmless difference. Even if regulation is meant to preserve stability, it’s worth asking whether that stability could be protected without erasing voices or narrowing the space where people see themselves reflected.
So while we may start from different premises about the role of the state, I think there’s still shared ground in wanting governments — whatever form they take — to weigh the human cost of their rules as carefully as the benefits.
Nope. This is a wuxia drama with straight romance as side stories. The ML has 2nd FL as his love interest. It…
I see what you’re getting at about different kinds of harm, and you’re right that “suffering” isn’t a single category — slavery or violent persecution clearly aren’t on the same scale as media stereotypes. But silence and invisibility also create pressure: people start wondering whether they’re “normal,” and that can feed stigma or risky social dynamics. Even if it doesn’t always lead to dramatic outcomes, there’s no good reason to impose any level of harm, however small — especially on issues you yourself describe as minor.
A government strong enough to ensure stability should also be strong enough to accommodate difference; if accepting diversity threatens it, perhaps it isn’t as solid as it wants to appear. And as for “they’re on the ground,” well, sometimes the darkest spot is right under the lamp. Having vast information about citizens doesn’t automatically mean policies are in their best interest — the living conditions of many people suggest otherwise, not just in China, but the sheer number there makes it particularly striking.
Which raises a practical point: why focus so heavily on policing harmless shows like BL dramas instead of tackling the real social and economic problems that keep millions struggling? Redirecting regulatory energy from entertainment bans toward improving people’s lives would do far more for collective welfare.
Nope. This is a wuxia drama with straight romance as side stories. The ML has 2nd FL as his love interest. It…
Thanks for reflecting. Values can’t be separated from culture, history, or society. Even so, it’s fair to call out policies that cause harm, limit representation, or restrict freedoms — no need to prove absolute moral truths.
I understand the focus on collective stability, but we should avoid causing unnecessary suffering to individuals. Individuality isn’t about self-promotion (for me); it’s about respecting differences without forcing everyone into the same mold. That’s key to honoring human dignity, diversity, and our shared humanity.
Nope. This is a wuxia drama with straight romance as side stories. The ML has 2nd FL as his love interest. It…
Funny — by saying there’s nothing to prove, you’ve just proved you’re a relativist. And anyway, nobody needs to solve moral philosophy to point out when a policy tramples basic values like fairness or not harming people.
Saying “there’s nothing to prove” already gives away your position: that’s moral relativism — you’re rejecting any independent standard by which one could prove or disprove a value claim. That’s not a counter-argument, it’s a philosophical stance.
And the whole “prove objective morality or STFU” line is a category error. Public debate isn’t a metaphysics seminar; no one has to settle whether objective moral truths exist before they’re allowed to criticize a policy. In ordinary conversation, we build arguments from widely shared values — avoiding harm, fairness, equality, freedom of expression — and from the real-world effects of rules on people’s lives. If a policy harms or marginalizes a group, that’s enough to make it fair game for criticism.
What also stands out is your tone: instead of addressing those substantive concerns, you default to dismissing people as “cultural imperialists,” questioning their right to speak, or telling them to be quiet unless they meet your bar for proof. That comes across as aggressive gatekeeping rather than serious engagement. If you want to be taken seriously, stick to evidence about what the policy actually does and how it affects people, instead of shutting down discussion with ultimatums.
1
Mmmm, but i don't think they do it always, look revenged love, and that is really not ALL. Even ABO Desire i don't exxpect sad end (no main leads deaths at least).
As well, does it mean they will scratch the Gao Tu's father subplot based on your novel knowledge?
And before we go, let me just praise them for how they developed and corrected the appearance of the second couple in this series. When readers described them at the beginning, I was truly worried. However, now I can calmly say I’m fine with it. Even though the second couple only appeared together again in the last episode, they worked magic with what they were given, and I’m grateful for it. Do I want more? Yes. But it’s no longer something to complain about — it’s something to praise, which I’m giving to them right now.
Thank you. 🙏
I don’t think our disagreement is just about paternalism vs. non-paternalism, though. For me, it’s less about preferring one template of government and more about whether any policy, in any system, unnecessarily limits people’s freedom or dignity. That concern isn’t erased by context — it’s part of what keeps discussion honest.
Pluralism doesn’t have to mean we stay silent about policies that create avoidable harm or that suppress harmless difference. Even if regulation is meant to preserve stability, it’s worth asking whether that stability could be protected without erasing voices or narrowing the space where people see themselves reflected.
So while we may start from different premises about the role of the state, I think there’s still shared ground in wanting governments — whatever form they take — to weigh the human cost of their rules as carefully as the benefits.
A government strong enough to ensure stability should also be strong enough to accommodate difference; if accepting diversity threatens it, perhaps it isn’t as solid as it wants to appear. And as for “they’re on the ground,” well, sometimes the darkest spot is right under the lamp. Having vast information about citizens doesn’t automatically mean policies are in their best interest — the living conditions of many people suggest otherwise, not just in China, but the sheer number there makes it particularly striking.
Which raises a practical point: why focus so heavily on policing harmless shows like BL dramas instead of tackling the real social and economic problems that keep millions struggling? Redirecting regulatory energy from entertainment bans toward improving people’s lives would do far more for collective welfare.
I understand the focus on collective stability, but we should avoid causing unnecessary suffering to individuals. Individuality isn’t about self-promotion (for me); it’s about respecting differences without forcing everyone into the same mold. That’s key to honoring human dignity, diversity, and our shared humanity.
Saying “there’s nothing to prove” already gives away your position: that’s moral relativism — you’re rejecting any independent standard by which one could prove or disprove a value claim. That’s not a counter-argument, it’s a philosophical stance.
And the whole “prove objective morality or STFU” line is a category error. Public debate isn’t a metaphysics seminar; no one has to settle whether objective moral truths exist before they’re allowed to criticize a policy. In ordinary conversation, we build arguments from widely shared values — avoiding harm, fairness, equality, freedom of expression — and from the real-world effects of rules on people’s lives. If a policy harms or marginalizes a group, that’s enough to make it fair game for criticism.
What also stands out is your tone: instead of addressing those substantive concerns, you default to dismissing people as “cultural imperialists,” questioning their right to speak, or telling them to be quiet unless they meet your bar for proof. That comes across as aggressive gatekeeping rather than serious engagement. If you want to be taken seriously, stick to evidence about what the policy actually does and how it affects people, instead of shutting down discussion with ultimatums.