Qojgx086

This is by the same author of love and redemption from what I am seeing Bai zongying will be like hao chen character 😀 i feel like it will give that way self righteous antagonist and second lead

If this drama doesn’t turn out good nah it’s all the fault of screenwriter and director like most of the actors here are really great at doing their job as actors bruh

The plot is just average general lady idol drama just any manhua or romance novel . And it also didn’t have much depth it’s good for teenagers to watch and some people who never got the taste of first love in their younger age so they can live it up in their head 👀

Bruh I am shocked 😱 this drama got hindi dubbed on mx player . I really hope we get more high quality historical dramas in Hindi dubbed. Every Indian plz request on mx player page

Chinese people are dragging her through mud cause of he earring controversy she had like not a single good comment about her and every people is bringing up her earring stuff in the shows videos

Chen feiyu would do great in beyond the time graze live adaptation drama that donghua is very violent and gore and male lead is abit psychotic and ruthless because of the situation he grew up in 😂 that would be great if they cast him for the live adaptation if it happens

This has the potential even if it’s a sad ending but the lead’s actor can’t act bro and no chemistry mostly the female lead . I will watch this if it gets a remake 👍

The improvement compared to Fangs of Fortune is noticeable. The writing feels more polished, the emotional flow is more consistent, and the character dynamics feel more organic. It’s always great to see creative growth in new projects.

Pointing out patterns like how certain age-gap castings keep getting normalized, especially to teenage audiences isn’t an attack on actors or viewers. It’s a critique of the system. But instead of addressing that, the discussion keeps getting derailed into “just don’t watch,” “ignore it,” or assuming people’s morals and intentions. That’s not a counter-argument, it’s avoidance.

When something has been common for years, people stop questioning it. That’s how normalization works. Many adults only recognize these patterns later because, as teens, we didn’t have the awareness to question power dynamics in media. Noticing it now isn’t hypocrisy it’s growth.

Liking romance or supporting actors doesn’t require shutting down every uncomfortable conversation. Actors can be talented and still be part of an industry that deserves scrutiny. Those things aren’t mutually exclusive.

If a general discussion about industry practices feels like a personal attack, that reaction says more about emotional attachment than about the argument itself.

What keeps happening in discussions like this is deflection, not debate.

A systemic concern gets raised casting minors opposite significantly older actors, power dynamics, and normalization to young audiences and instead of engaging with the issue, it’s immediately reframed as a personal attack on actors or their fans.

This is where the conversation breaks down. Industry criticism is repeatedly taken as an attack on someone’s favorite actor, so it becomes personal. People get overly sensitive, emotionally reactive, and start projecting motives questioning others’ morals, upbringing, or intent even when the discussion is clearly about industry practices, not individuals.

That emotional personalization is itself a form of deflection. It shifts focus away from the system and onto defending idols, which shuts down any meaningful discussion. Actors can be innocent participants while the industry structures and norms around them are still worth questioning. Those two ideas are not mutually exclusive.

Another common deflection is saying “this happens everywhere” or “it’s always been like this.” Repetition does not make a practice acceptable it shows how deeply normalized it has become. The fact that similar patterns exist across K-dramas, C-dramas, or K-pop is not a defense; it’s precisely why these patterns deserve scrutiny.

Labeling criticism as “hate,” “keyboard warrioring,” or “hurting actors” avoids the actual point. It turns accountability into cruelty and disagreement into moral failure. That isn’t protecting anyone it’s protecting the status quo.

Discomfort with these conversations often comes from emotional attachment, not from the argument itself. Questioning normalized industry practices especially when the core audience is teenagers is not malicious, and it shouldn’t be treated as a personal offense just because the practice existed in the past.

this was for @raeli who now blocked me cause she wanted the last laugh and i also made an account for asking her why she than blocked me again after dregrading me and scrutinizing my morals when i was talking about the whole as cdrama industry as a whole

Let’s talk about reality.

This isn’t a personal attack on any actor. It’s a critique of the industry and systemic practices that put a 17-year-old in a role with ethically questionable dynamics. Consent letters, farewell letters, or past experience don’t erase the ethical concern that’s the point that keeps being ignored.

To the so-called defenders: accusing commenters of being “keyboard warriors” or “morally upright” only deflects from the real issue. Blaming the commenters for hypothetical stress, harassment, or mental health consequences is emotional manipulation, not reasoning. Criticism of systemic problems does not equal attacking actors pretending it does is a tactic to silence discussion.

Repeating unrelated comparisons other actors, age “just being a number,” mild romance, prior experience does not change the ethical reality of putting a minor in a romantic role. These are all classic deflection techniques, used over and over instead of engaging with the argument.

Writing long comments isn’t “finding excuses” or “feeding hate.” It’s making a clear, reasoned argument about normalization, age-gap dynamics, and the desensitization of young audiences. Labeling reasoned discussion as “extreme methods” or a “hate train” only reveals an inability to engage with the points themselves.

If you feel the need to defend actors at all costs while ignoring the systemic problems, that’s your choice but doing so obsessively, personalizing criticism, and moralizing does nothing to solve the real issues. Your responses are a perfect example of repeating the same deflection loop: personalize → guilt-trip → whataboutism → accuse motives → repeat. And the more you write, the more obvious it becomes to neutral readers.

This comment isn’t about attacking anyone’s favorite actor. It’s about calling attention to patterns, asking questions about normalization, and holding the industry accountable. If the actual points are ignored, that is not the commenter’s failure it’s the inability of the defenders to respond beyond obsession disguised as righteousness.

Let’s be clear: this isn’t about attacking the actors. It’s about the industry putting a minor in ethically questionable roles and the normalization of age-gap dynamics. Consent letters, farewell letters, or past experience don’t erase the ethical concern that’s the point you keep ignoring.

Your comment is a perfect example of the same deflection loop you’ve been running for days: personalizing the argument (“keyboard warriors,” “stress and anxiety”), moralizing, repeating unrelated whataboutism (other actors, “just a number,” mild romance), and accusing motives instead of addressing the core issue.

Criticism of systemic issues does not equal hate toward actors. Pretending it does, or framing me as morally responsible for other people’s behavior, is emotional manipulation and it exposes that you aren’t engaging with the argument at all.

If you can’t respond to the actual points about normalization, minors, and audience desensitization then the problem isn’t my comment. It’s your inability to engage beyond obsession disguised as righteousness.

This isn’t about blaming the actor or her parents it’s about the industry putting a minor in a role with ethical concerns. Consent or parental approval doesn’t erase the problem or the normalization of age-gap dynamics.

Accusing me of “finding excuses” or “repeating myself” is projection. I’m stating the same points clearly because they’re the facts of the issue. You keep cycling through the same deflection loop: blame parents, moralize, accuse motives, repeat instead of engaging with the argument itself.

That’s not discussion. That’s obsession disguised as righteousness. If you can’t respond to the point, the problem is not my comment it’s your inability to engage with it.

First, this isn’t about blaming the actor or her parents it’s about the industry putting a 17-year-old in a role with ethical concerns. Consent papers don’t erase power imbalances or the normalization of age-gap dynamics.

Second, accusing me of “finding excuses” is projection. I’m making a reasoned argument, not defending wrongdoing.

Third, blaming me for hypothetical “haters” is emotional manipulation. Criticizing systemic practices does not equal harassment, and trying to make it personal avoids the real issue.

At this point, you’re repeating the same deflection loop: blame someone else, accuse motives, guilt-trip me without ever engaging with the actual argument. This isn’t discussion it’s obsession disguised as righteousness.

First of all, I’m not attacking the actor. My criticism is about the industry and normalization of age-gap dynamics involving minors, not about whether she “consented” or whether her parents approved. Consent doesn’t erase the ethical concerns of placing a 17-year-old in that role.

Second, saying “Reuters didn’t show her discomfort” doesn’t prove anything. Minors often cannot speak freely about pressure on set, and absence of public complaint ≠ absence of ethical issues.

Third, I’m not “just picking on Aimi.” My comment addresses patterns in casting and audience desensitization. Pretending this is personal criticism is deflection.

Fourth, blaming me for potential negativity toward actors is emotional manipulation. Criticizing systemic practices does not equal harassment, and pretending it does avoids the real problem.

Finally, accusing me of writing “theories of justice for pleasure” is projection. I am questioning an industry that puts minors in ethically problematic positions not the actors themselves. Trying to make this about me instead of the issue shows you’re running out of actual points.

This is emotional manipulation, not an argument.

Criticizing an industry practice is not “provoking hate,” and holding audiences responsible for hypothetical harassment is a reach. Actors receiving hate is wrong but that responsibility lies with people who harass, not with those discussing media ethics.

Blaming criticism for someone’s mental health while ignoring the industry that places minors into controversial roles is backwards. If a 17-year-old’s mental health is a concern, that’s more reason to question why she’s put into situations that invite scrutiny not less.

Calling every critique a “smear campaign” and every commenter a “keyboard warrior” doesn’t protect actors. It just shuts down discussion and shifts accountability away from the system making these decisions.

This response mixes multiple unrelated issues and still avoids the original point.

These dramas are primarily marketed to teenagers and young adults, and youth audiences make up a large portion of online fandom spaces. That’s exactly why normalization matters.

Second, bringing up Western culture, idol outfits, or kissing scenes elsewhere is whataboutism. Other industries doing questionable things does not make this any less worth discussing. Criticism isn’t selective outrage just because it focuses on one case.

Third, calling C-dramas “pure” or saying they follow government rules doesn’t address the ethical concern. Legality and regulation do not automatically equal ethical responsibility. Something can follow rules and still normalize unhealthy dynamics.

Fourth, criticism of industry practices is not an attack on actors. Actors can be innocent while the system that casts and markets them deserves scrutiny. Framing accountability as a “hate train” is an emotional deflection, not a rebuttal.

Finally, saying people shouldn’t discuss this because it causes “hatred” discourages media literacy and silences valid concerns. Conversations about normalization and power imbalance are not harmful refusing to engage with them is.

This isn’t about targeting C-dramas or blaming actors. It’s about recognizing patterns, questioning normalization, and having honest discussions instead of dismissing them with deflection.
and cdrama industry aint pure its much worse if u know what happens to most of the chinese actors and actresses .

Let’s be real the majority of drama audiences are teenagers and young adults. That’s exactly why this kind of casting matters. If minors are the main viewers, normalizing age-gap dynamics involving minors isn’t harmless entertainment, it’s conditioning. Dismissing criticism as “keyboard warriors” doesn’t change that reality.Acting like most viewers aren’t teenagers is just dishonest. These shows are marketed to young audiences, not media ethics professors. Normalizing these dynamics to a teenage fanbase is the issue and calling people “keyboard warriors” is just deflection.If the audience is mostly teens, normalization isn’t neutral and pretending otherwise is just denial.

i guess she is clever and smart from her personality it doenst seem like she will hurt anyone or ruin someones reputation for power . but she obviously is power driven and scheming. till now it seems she wont hurt anyone not sure about future episodes.