Andy_Torres

Did you unleash your indoctrination? What does what you say about the killing of LGBT people or Black people have to do with anything? Of course, you conveniently ignore to mention the fact that white men are also killed in droves,leaving it sadly and perhaps in an etc, but that's what your progressive ideology has ingrained in your mind. I was the one who pointed out that this has become a social issue, and I was speaking in the context of personal or romantic relationships, because that's what's being discussed. None of what you're saying about the social aspect of the issue is being addressed.


I won't say anything more about your victimhood. Apparently, it's not just personal that you have negative feelings toward a community, because you insist on seeing it that way and make a huge fuss justifying why there shouldn't be a tag for homosexual romance. Furthermore, the plot twist wasn't presented without any basis; it was already being developed in the plot. What I'm saying is that it's a very important point in the plot; it's a plot twist for a reason. Why do you care that I'm focusing on that and not on what you think is more important? Isn't this just an opinion?

No, I didn't miss the other parts, but it turns out there's no correlation between one thing and the other. Disapproving of or disliking one thing doesn't mean you approve the other, especially when it's already being treated in the K-drama itself as something to be condemned or something negative, unlike a romance or a personal relationship. Anyway, if there are tags for that too, then let them be; it doesn't change the fact. You love the show, and I've already realized I don't like it. Nobody's going to listen to us about whether or not to use tags. People who don't like that GL part of the plot will probably drop it, whatever the reason, while those who like it will keep watching. So let's not drag this out any longer. We have very different opinions, and we're not going to reach an agreement on this, so let's just leave it at that.

Clearly, this isn't a personal matter; I wish you'd leave it at that, but you've all turned it into a social issue. Besides, look at how you all react when someone tells you they don't like it: you talk about hate and other nonsense. Furthermore, the show clearly demonstrates that this issue is a crucial plot point; they've been weaving it in from the beginning. It's not trivial, and therefore it needs to be tagged as such.

What's shameful is defending so much garbage...

It wasn't promoted as GL either... And if you want to call it lesbiophobia, go ahead. You're all completely tiresome with your progressive and woke nonsense. You don't even want to understand that some people just don't like it, and that's it. What do you care if they have a phobia or if they simply don't like seeing it? Are you going to force them to watch it and accept it?

So what if they exist? Why aren't there tags highlighting it? Don't you understand that some people don't like watching that?

Since you keep pushing this topic, then let’s keep extending it.

First of all, you are responding to something I never said. I see that building straw men is something you do quite often. I am not saying that criticizing from within a privileged society is, by definition, hypocritical or performative. In fact, I had already anticipated that objection several times.

What I am pointing out is something much more specific, i mean when criticism is used as a hypocritical way of presenting oneself morally to others, without acknowledging the real position from which one is speaking. You say that benefiting from a system does not morally disqualify anyone from criticizing it. I never said otherwise.

The problem is not criticism itself. The problem is turning that criticism into a stage for moral self-display, as I already said, while one continues to comfortably enjoy the very same conditions being denounced. That is why I used the example of the rich person, not to say that a rich person cannot criticize their wealth, but to show how hypocritical it is to complain about one’s own advantage, or to denounce it, while using that complaint as a signal of virtue.

Now, about North Korea, because here you keep diverting what I actually responded to. You said that if people really hated their country or lived so badly, the country would stop existing. And my reference to North Korea is a direct response to that line of reasoning. I did not use it to say “at least we are not a dictatorship,” nor to defend any policy in the United States. I used it to show that your deduction is false. A regime does not need the real support of the population in order to continue to exist.

Then you bring in the idea that dominant powers shape narratives and that history is written by the victors. But again, I have not denied that. Even so, that does not fix the problem I was pointing out regarding the inference that the mere existence of a country or a regime proves social acceptance. Acknowledging narrative power does not correct that mistake.

Then you say that criticizing one’s own country is a sign of political maturity. Once again, that is not what is under discussion. What I called self-pity is not criticism itself, but a very specific attitude: constantly, and as a first move, presenting your own country as a morally evil case, while ignoring or not even mentioning, in that first instance, realities where there is not even a minimal possibility of public criticism.

For the sake of coherence, those should be the first cases mentioned when talking about evil or corruption. I think you have forgotten this point that I already addressed. It is a crucial point for understanding my original reply and for seeing how you have drifted into so many straw men. Because for many people, the first country that gets associated with “evil” or with being a “bad country” is the United States, while other regimes that truly deserve a frontal denunciation end up being relativized or even defende. So no, that is not automatically political maturity. It is a comfortable way of constructing a moral identity.

And no, I do not interpret criticism as ingratitude. What I am asking for is something more basic: to recognize the real asymmetry of conditions. Your ability to speak, criticize, publish, and build a political identity through criticism exists because you operate within an institutional framework that allows it.

That does not take away your right to criticize. But it does make it problematic to treat that very same framework as if it were simply just another moral context, interchangeable with openly repressive systems, at least not one that deserves that level of focus, since it is the only one that is mentioned and attacked first. And that contradiction is not explained by civic responsibility. It is often explained by the fact that it is very easy to sustain a demanding moral posture when one lives protected by the very system one is denouncing.

It’s crazy how many contradictions you can write while making it look as if I were the one who doesn’t understand the situation.

Look, the reason I brought up North Korea in the first place is precisely because you, and many people who live in countries like the United States, do not really recognize your own privileges, and yet you still have the nerve to be condescending toward yourselves by constantly pointing out how “bad” your country is.

Don’t you see the irony in all this?
Don’t you see how absurd it is for a rich person to lecture a poor person about how bad it is to be rich, and to pretend to empathize with the poor from a position of wealth, while complaining about their own wealth?I am not saying that you cannot criticize something while being rich. The problem is not wealth itself. The problem is turning your privileged position into a stage for your own moral self-display.

Then, in what kind of unrealistic world do you live to make such a syllogism between people’s supposed hatred and the disappearance of a dictatorial and repressive regime?Do you even understand what it means not to have freedom of expression? That is what must be addressed first, before talking about who “writes history.”Besides, a regime does not need the support of the people it controls in order to remain in power. At this point, trying to whitewash such a level of domination with such a naive and irresponsible deduction is frankly worrying.

Finally, I am not saying that the United States is an ideal country. But it is, at least for the Western world, a bacon, and that cannot be denied. What I do find truly disturbing is that the first country many people associate with evil or with being a “bad country” is the United States, while there are others that genuinely deserve to be singled out and are instead even defende, thus socially perpetuating exactly what they claim to criticize, but do not really understand, because they are trapped in their own self-pity.

But it doesn’t matter, I think our points of view have already been made clear. Saying more would be redundant, especially since we’re in a place that has nothing to do with this topic.

So what about North Korea? The difference is striking, since you talk about it being a mess. Imagine if you think that, then what you should think of those countries, but the curious thing is that you don't mention it. It also doesn't matter if you're American; many people lack a sense of national identity and are hypocritical in their self-pity. And as I said, many countries have bad things, whether they're the "supreme nation" or not.

There's always one of you, haha. The United States isn't the only country with bad things. In fact, if you could let go of that indoctrination you're under, you'd realize there are countries with worse situations than the one in this K-drama. Also, I find it really interesting that you say "the current affairs" as if there wasn't anything bad before, haha.