Lily Lac

??????
Speaking of comprehension skills; how did you interpret what I said to imply masses = institutions? The term, "opium for the masses" was used by Marx because religion acted as soothing medicine FOR THE PEOPLE against institutional oppression. That is to say, Marx was talking about religion SPECIFICALLY IN RELATION TO INSTITUTIONAL OPPRESSION.
Neither of your paragraphs fit this context.

Your first paragraph: "On the level of the individual, it exists to satiate people's search for meaning, answers questions that science still fails to address, matters that are beyond our understanding." Okay, you've explained the nature of religion, which doesn't fit with Marx's context.

Your second paragraph: "On an institutional level, it serves to ensure social control. We have laws in place, and religion reinforces them in the form of introducing the concept of morality and guilt, of heaven and eternal damnation." Doesn't either.

This is also assuming that you didn't edit or change anything after my previous reading because now your review seems slightly different and more passive. But either way, whether you've edited it or not, it's still wrong.
Concerning your comments about my manners, don't be a hypocrite.

Ah, a drama with pseudointellectual content attracting more pseudointellectuals. Unsurprising.
If you're going to cite Marx, at least read his works before jumping to conclusions on a snippet of what he said. Marx didn't invoke religion because he viewed it as an agent of institutional oppression, he viewed religion as a direct consequence of institutional oppression--that people rely on religion to escape their oppressors. The only thing that you've said that matches Marx's view is the sense that religion is man-made, which is far from impressive.

Lol... you have precisely verified my thoughts that you are dumb. I was obviously exaggerating; the fact that you think I structured my question to say, "Hah, gotcha! You didn't really mean ALL religious people only some religious people.," and that you think "Most, yes" is a proficient answer is quite emptyheaded and laughable.
If you want to criticise religion, do so after taking a course on religion or after reading a single religious thinker.

Yeah... because the religious fanatics represents all religious people. You are as dumb as this alarmist writer.

Going by what you said, he then has to wait a decade or longer for his experiment to get approved (with the possibility that it may not get approved at all). If he hires a random person under the table, he risks getting blackmailed or reported. The most efficient way is to do the experiment himself.

Not really. He is trying to see whether his experiment was actually successful and curious about what direct experiences can culminate from his experiment. For someone who is logical and lacks emotions like fear, his reactions make sense to me. All of your reasons are based off emotional reasons than logical reasons. He would be unwilling to jeopardize his research if he feared getting caught. He would be unwilling to use corpses in his experiments if he had emotional attachments toward the idea of sacredness of human bodies. He would properly document his experiments if he wanted to get recognized and leave a legacy, or wanted other scientists to recreate his experiment. Even if any further trials were successful, it's unlikely for his research team to experiment beyond animals to humans in the near future. It will most likely take decades or longer just so they can get their research approved by the government and the ethics committee. Therefore, for someone who lacked emotions and wanted only to succeed in his experiment, it would make more sense for him to try to finish his experiment in the most efficient way possible, ignoring the legality in the process.

This comment section just has flocks of people repeating the same falsities without actually looking at the the data.

Firstly, people claim had AiB been Korean and had the same amount of exposure as Squid Game, AiB would have the same level of popularity or better - that it is only a matter of Squid Game being Korean that made it more popular than AiB. Well, fortunately, we have examinable data to see if this is true. After SG's success, AiB received more exposure than ever before and reached Top 10 in the world for the first time in Netflix. Yet, very quickly (less than 3 weeks), AiB lost its footing in the rankings and was quickly forgotten while SG, still to this day, remains on top. Unless you people have some weird delusion that Westerners, who don't understand either Korean or Japanese, just have a strange penchant for the Korean language, this narrative does not make any sense. Maybe, just maybe, it's the acting, the screenwriting, the cinematography, and directing that sets one apart from the other???

Secondly, people say the SG's games are more simple and AiB's games are more complex. At surface level, this may be true, but why is it that I, and many others, can very accurately and effortlessly remember the progression of the games in SG, yet we struggle to remember the progression of the games in AiB? Because SG's games are more simple? No. There are simple death games in movies like Escape Room and I still struggle to remember the progression of the games after watching it. The reason for this phenomena is because even the structure of the games in SG is allegorical:
First two games (Red light, Green light, and Honeycomb): these games are to weed out contestants who cannot obey the rules or cannot psych themselves to act according to their strategy. It is a test of their performance under pressure. If they act quickly without accessing the situation - they die; If they freeze up - they die; if they tremble too much - they die.
Third game (Tug of War): This game is to show whether a team can kill another team due to the rules of the game
Fourth game (Marble) : This game is to show whether an individual can kill another individual due to the rules of the game
Fifth and Sixth game (Glass Bridge/Squid Game): These two games are to show whether an individual can kill out of their own agency.
At any moment the participants can quit, but they convince themselves to remain in this rat race because their options are limited and there is a high chance that they'd just end up in a similar situation.

In other words, the games, altogether, tell us an allegory about natural competition and greed found in corporate settings. As a job seeker or a salaryman, you can, more or less, undergo the same experience as the competitors do in their games. I have never seen another death game film, manga, or anime do this.

I like what finika said and you seem to be the one who is taking this personally and being defensive for no reason. They are debating you about semantics and not your subjective taste (read their first sentence). Tearjerkers are what the fans tagged it as, it's not what the filmmakers labeled it as (read their analogy about interpreting art against the aim of art by the artist). You're coming off as passive aggressive even when they've been helpfully and constructively criticizing you.

Don't worry about this person; they are crazy. Just look at their comments in the Squid Game section. Just another person jealous of Korea's rising fame. 🙄

Read the original comment, read my comment, then read what you've replied to my comment, then reread my recent comment.

Lol. You're like a gambler who hopes for an outcome before it arrives. If you're so confident about its success, why do you keep trying to convince others? The numbers will speak for itself.

So how do these facts contradict what I've originally said...? Or make it seem like I didn't know about AiB's previous popularity?

https://sea.ign.com/netflix/167396/news/10-things-you-should-know-about-alice-in-borderland#:~:text=Top%20Ten,and%20Greece%2C%20among%20other%20places.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_in_Borderland_(TV_series)

All the official sites have reported around 40 countries. The only sites that have claimed AiB hit over 50+ are in blogs. But even if you were right, it's significantly less than the current count right now. So, try again?

Regarding its relevance, we'll see. 😉

AiB hit top 10 in 40 countries last year.
As of this moment, AiB hit top 10 in 78 countries and top 10 in the world overall for the first time. Try again.

Yes, you have the right to have your opinion but expect people to call you out for it if it is insensitive or creepy, especially if you share those opinions on an online public space.
Yes, there were many instances of mistranslations that took away from the show, but no, translating "damn..." for "씨발..." is not one of those.

This show has gotten the best promotion possible because of Squid Game's success. So, if the show is as high-quality as you think it is, let's see how long it stays relevant 😉.

Yes, I am half Korean and I had lived in Korea for several months. The closest Korean word for "Damn..." is "제길" but that is outdated and less commonly used than "씨발..." and are basically the same concept. You can say, "you are damn X" by using "존나" which would be similar to "fucking" or "Damn it (more excitedly)" which would be "젠장" (but this term is also used less frequently than "씨발!" and people would use it as the same concept.)
Even in English, "fuck" and "damn" have near equivalent meanings in many contexts, such as "fuck you" and "damn you," and only differ in the "crudeness" of their presentation, so I don't see what the problem is unless you were a linguist.

I thought Ho Yeon looked amazing.

First, your comments about modeling and the fashion industry is tactless. Why stop at models? Why not remove athletes, musicians, geniuses, artists, etc? If you are setting your standards to the physically most beautiful people in the world, then that's on you. It would be like if I said let's ban tall NBA players because that puts unfair standards on height... Yeah, so? We all have different sets of skills, and things we can work on. Stop looking at the .01% of the population for your standards. The fashion industry uses models because they make the clothes stand out better due to their proportions. The models also make sacrifices to maintain their body because it's their job. Some jobs are safer than others. People who work in construction destroy their bodies over time. People who work in factories develop deformities and disorders because they work with hazardous wastes. Why are you not concerned about them? Those jobs make modelling seem like a walk in the park (or runway). You can say you want the fashion industry to be more conscious about the workers' health, and I will stand with you, but trying to eradicate them entirely because their ideals don't match yours seem to be more out of your envy and spite than your considerations for the production of moral values.
You are unfairly comparing Ho Yeon to beauty pageant contestants. That's like saying any buff person in the film industry has the same regiments as a bodybuilder, which is complete nonsense. Unless she said it, you should not speak for her behalf.
You don't know if she's naturally skinny or if she's unhealthy. You don't know her weight. You don't know if she has a fit lifestyle or not. You don't know her body intake. Yet, you're making all these assumptions about her, which makes you look insecure. Also, your comment on the child actor is borderline creepy. Finally, "Fuck..." or "씨발..." can be equivalent to "Damn..." depending on the context just like English.
Seriously, are you thinking about your comments before writing them?

1. No one makes decisions out of 100% certainty - by this logic, why even trust the game makers that they would give you the prize? Please evaluate how you make decisions, and if you make decisions only if you are 100% certain (in other words, you don't make any big decisions) then look to others and see how they make theirs.

2. His confidence in Gi Hoon grew over time. He always knew Gi Hoon was a good person, but once he saw Gi Hoon was willing to sacrifice his winnings to save him, he knew what type of person Gi Hoon was even in the troughs of life. Please look at the context around the decisions, and compare them from previous decisions. I'm sorry to say that I do not have the patience to go through every Sang Woo and Gi Hoon moment just to convince you, but I will say their relationship was portrayed throughout the show as: they were childhood friends, then they were strangers, then they became teammates who slowly caught up to date with each other, and ultimately they were reminded of their childhood again. Maybe that will clue you in?

3. If you are referring to Cinema Summary's video, then no. His videos are meant to be flashy or summarize the ordeal and figure out slightly more witty ways of finding the solution than what was presented in the film, which is not difficult if you are analyzing the clip over and over with an indefinite amount of time to research. Yet, in most cases his answers are not realistic. If you've killed someone and someone is screaming and questioning why you killed that person, most people's natural reaction would not be to stay calm and play the game. They will get roused or irritated, and exceptionally so, if they feel the need to justify themselves. Also, let's see how calm you'll be if someone is waving a knife at you, given you're not John Wick, (or better yet, have the courage to toss him out of bounds, which was CS's solution 🙄 🙄).
You also do something similar to what Cinema Summary does when you talk about Sang Woo's decision - with hindsight bias of Gi Hoon waiting a year to help out Sang Woo's mom, you lowered your confidence in Gi Hoon's likelihood of helping the mom. I'm sorry, but most people are not going to think like this. They will think in terms of binary answers - will Gi Hoon help my mom or not - not - how long will it take for him to help her - especially in situations where you only have a few second to make a decision.

4. Sang Woo did have a choice and he made the choice to sacrifice himself. I don't get why you're under the impression that he didn't have a choice or the show presented it as such? If he didn't have a choice, then the fact that he stabbed himself (rather than stabbing Gi Hoon) would not have been a minor twist in the show.

He has a gambling addiction... Yes, it's selfish but it's also not volitional.

I mean, people have been talking about AiB in SG's section and vice-versa, so I don't think there's that big of a problem. At least for Sang Woo's situation, I will resolve it here in case future onlookers are also interested in this, but if you have further questions about either shows I am willing to resolve it over PM.

I think your issue with SG is you are viewing this as you would in most shounen anime, which is that everything is black and white when there are many shades of grey. Ask yourself what motivates selfish people? Usually there are two scenarios: one is you are selfish for yourself, and the other is you are selfish for your loved ones. Sang Woo is not in the first category, but the second category. Yes, it's still selfishness but "pure selfishness" is for the first kind - uncaring about anyone except yourself (the gangster & the old man). Also, if you have noted the detail that I said, which was that he was suicidal in the beginning of the show, then that should suggest his only redemption to live was to fulfill his duties as a son. If you have that in mind then the rest of his decisions makes more sense. The bottom line for why he didn't doesn't kill Gi Hoon is because he didn't need to. Ali and the girl needed to die in order for him to advance, but Sang Woo knows Gi Hoon's character - that he would take care of his mom because he knows his character and they are childhood friends. In such a case, does he continue to shoulder the responsibility and live the rest of his life with guilt and regret knowing he is actually a monster by betraying someone unnecessarily or have Gi Hoon shoulder it for him instead? You are viewing this situation as though Sang Woo was inherently selfish and he desired to live no matter what. But I think that would be a very one dimensional character.

Put yourself in his shoes. Throughout the show, you've been constantly justifying yourself by telling others (and thereby telling yourself) that you've killed because you had to. Gi Hoon dismantles your ideals by choosing to surrender everything by sparing you. Then, do you think anyone other than an insane person would betray your friend who would surrender everything so you can live, even though you know your friend will take care of your problems if you died, and you were already going to end your life before participating. There is a high chance you are going to kill yourself because you have already been shouldering all the burdens of killing your teammates to get that far, so why would you desire to continue living unless you were really a sociopath? You told Gi Hoon you had to kill the girl because you knew Gi Hoon would convince the girl to surrender together so that everyone could all live. Why do you think you wouldn't want to surrender in that situation and go as far as killing the girl? Because you have already gone too far? For what? Yourself or your mother? Now if you truly killed Gi Hoon, you would realize the answer that it's really no longer about your mother, but only about yourself. But if you spare him, you can at least keep your dignity as a human being who had to kill for your loved ones.

How are you going to talk about the inconsistency of the characters in SG while making a comparison with AiB, which is the epitome of inconsistency... Furthermore, if AiB wasn't meant to be realistic, then that makes the show even worse. That means all the misogynistic depiction of women in the series could have been avoided, but it was intentionally put there for no reason.

Putting aside the realism in the physics and the the character's attributes, SG still has a more nuanced and realistic depiction of the character's motivations. In AiB, there were at least 5+ people who were eagerly willing to sacrifice themselves without any thought, just like how kids and teens would fantasize how cool it is for the heroes to sacrifice themselves. This might be realistic for an imaginative 12 year old, but it is not realistic at all in reality because people have responsibilities and reasons to live for. Squid Game underlined this fact very well by having the only martyr in the show kill herself because she didn't have anyone waiting for her, making it easier to sacrifice herself.
The second time someone decided to kill himself was Sang woo who only did so when Gi hoon was going to forfeit everything, which meant that he would have to either live in debt or kill Gi hoon and be a monster (because unlike previous situations, he lost the game, and will be killing someone out of pure selfishness and not for his mother), or kill himself and have Gi hoon take care of his problems in his behalf. If you also add in Sang woo's finance background and intelligence (to think of this scenario using game-theory), and how he was going to commit suicide in the beginning of the show, it becomes more obvious as to why he chose his decision. For the rest of the characters, the show demonstrated how the characters needed to live either for selfish reasons or for their loved ones.
The concept of "choice" is explored quite deeply in the show, and how people of different statuses and situations can be affected in different ways that mirrors reality pretty well. Even the ending talks about "choice." I can go even further into detail about every character decision, but there is no fun in that when you can do it yourself. I hope you just missed these factors, and you will analyze the show more carefully in the future before making such cursory claims. I think it just sucks when a show with so much more attention to detail and depth gets lumped together with a show that is just, in the best possible case, entertaining with creative scenarios...