eighthsense

Pro Bono vs. Lazy Critics: Guess Who Wins?

Pro Bono isn’t controversial, your privilege is. Some bubble dwellers voluntarily watched a legal drama (just 4 eps) and thought the biggest crime was queer representation or women’s autonomy. Spoiler: the only crime here is your complete lack of critical thinking.

“Too woke”
Okay, let’s unpack this embarrassing ‘hot take.’ You’re voluntarily watching a LAW drama, a genre literally about justice, society, and real life conflicts and your main critique is ‘too woke’? This show addresses teen pregnancy, anti abortion coercion, and queer rights (in first 4 eps). If that bothers you, maybe basic human rights just aren’t your thing….own it and move on.

“Pushing your agenda”
Calling women’s autonomy or queer existence an “agenda” is a rhetorical trick.
It reframes freedom as threat so that control looks like morality. Abortion as a personal vs. imposed choice. You completely ignore the distinction between personal belief and enforcing that belief on others. A religion can inform personal choices, but trying to force a fully grown woman/teen to carry a pregnancy against her will is coercion, not morality. Claiming this as “moral correctness” while decrying propaganda is contradictory.
If a belief cannot survive without being forced on others, then the belief, not the people living freely…. is the agenda. That’s the distinction.

“Propaganda”
Propaganda isn’t diversity, autonomy, or people living their truth, it’s the weaponization of belief to control others. Showing queer people on screen (for five minutes) or supporting women’s right to choose isn’t “pushing an agenda”; it’s acknowledging reality. The real agenda is hiding behind morality to take away agency: forcing a teen or sexual assault survivor to carry a pregnancy, dictating who people can love, or enforcing religious rules on everyone else while pretending it’s “for their own good.” It’s not about care or ethics; it’s about control. And the kicker? These people rarely give a damn about the outcomes, if the child is disabled, neglected, abused or struggling, that doesn’t matter. What matters is that their moral scoreboard looks clean. Freedom, choice, and empathy threaten them, so they call it an “agenda” to scare others into compliance. If your beliefs need chains to survive, that’s not morality, it’s coercion masquerading as virtue.

“This is Western crap, why bring it to Kdrama?”
Again, watching a LAW drama and complaining it’s “Western propaganda” is peak absurdity. This isn’t a romcom with rainbow sunshine; it’s a show about real societal issues which exist everywhere, not just in the U.S. Expecting a legal drama to ignore these realities is like complaining about rain during a storm. If discomfort equals propaganda, then reality itself is offensive, but maybe the problem isn’t the show, it’s the viewer.

Why did i take this drama as pro bono and defend it with my last two brain cells after scrolling through all the ignorant takes?
Because unlike some viewers, I actually understand what a law drama is, what human rights mean, and that empathy isn’t a ‘Western agenda.’ Yes, I got offended reading these comments deny basic human rights to fellow humans because it doesn’t align with their own religious beliefs. Religious beliefs should dictate how you lead your own life, not how you can control other’s life. I respect your religion and your beliefs. If you don’t want to abort your own baby, that is your choice and I will respect that. If you are not attracted to same sex, that is your orientation, I will respect that. Forcing it on others? Now thats a propaganda, not an opinion.

Media does not exist in a vacuum, it shapes what society sees as normal, moral, and acceptable. When topics addressed in this drama are ignored or softened, existing power structures are quietly validated. By portraying legal support for queer individuals and the real consequences of denying women choice over their own bodies, the show acknowledges lived realities that affect vulnerable people every day. This is not about promoting an ideology, but about refusing to romanticize control, questioning “clean” moral endings that overlook trauma, and reminding viewers that autonomy, consent, and dignity are essential to justice.


Addendum: Why I rated it high, what my actual critique is, and why that still doesn’t validate the comment section meltdown.

My initial high rating was intentional. The review space had already been flooded with low effort, ideologically driven ratings after just two/four episodes, people declaring the show “too woke” while admitting they barely watched it. The high rating was bait: to get people to actually read why this discourse matters.

That said, defending this drama from bad faith attacks does not mean I think it’s flawless or even particularly brave. In fact, my criticism starts precisely where the show pulls its punches. Despite gesturing toward queer rights, it never commits to a full queer centred legal case (yet). Representation remains implied, diluted, and safely peripheral present enough to signal progress, absent enough to avoid backlash. It is still a positive representation nonetheless. In a different perspective, this might be a stepping stone for upcoming law dramas. Similarly, the storyline involving a coerced teen pregnancy initially frames reproductive control as a legal and ethical violation, only to abandon that stance by episode four. The narrative retreats into a “neutral” resolution, having the disabled child adopted by an anti abortion hospital CEO, which conveniently avoids confronting the core issue: forcing a teenager to give birth against her will. This is narrative risk aversion. In other words, the show wants credit for raising hard questions without fully sitting in their consequences. That’s a valid critique. It reflects an industry tendency to appear progressive while ultimately reassuring conservative comfort zones. I also do not align with or endorse any alleged MAP symbolism or geopolitical propaganda some viewers have pointed out (till 4 eps).

Now here’s where the distinction matters: criticism is not the same as reactionary hate. Criticism interrogates execution, consistency, and ethical follow through. What I’m pushing back against in the comments is not thoughtful disagreement, it’s people collapsing at the mere presence of queer people or women exercising bodily autonomy and calling that collapse an “opinion.” Saying “the show avoids depth” or “it plays it too safe” is criticism. Saying “stop shoving this agenda down our throats” because marginalized people exist on screen is ideological panic.

When shows avoid fully confronting coercion, trauma, or queer legal realities, they don’t become “neutral”, they quietly reinforce existing power structures. My review defends the right of these issues to be addressed in this genre while holding the show accountable for how cautiously it ultimately does so. This review is not a blind praise. It is a refusal to let bad faith outrage masquerade as media critique. You’re allowed to dislike this drama. You’re allowed to critique its writing. What you’re not doing, no matter how loudly you insist is engaging in honest criticism when your problem is that other people’s rights make you uncomfortable.

Read More

A new perspective on Chan Yeong’s Tennis Cinematic Universe.

“Y’all are so dramatic. Why is everyone complaining? I love the hetero couple even though it’s an unpopular opinion. I actually loved and enjoyed this drama. Ignore the haters and bl fanatics.”

(Translation-Don’t listen to all the criticism given by “bl fans”. Let’s ignore queer representation, who cares about that. Let’s focus on hetero couple like we have always.)

This is my love letter to people who said the above things.

So brave of you to stan the default straight couple in a drama where no one asked for them. And their story? revolutionary. Truly never been done before. This isn’t about disliking a couple. It’s about a storytelling failure. The hetero couple is not the enemy. The problem is that they were never the main characters. Here is an unpopular opinion. Queer baiting and straightwashing is wrong.

Criticism is not hating.
People really need to hear this: Criticizing a drama’s writing is not the same as hating a couple, hating the actors, or hating the show. Criticism means you care enough to point out what’s wrong. And what’s wrong here isn’t a matter of “taste.” It’s not “people just don’t like the side couple.” It’s not “you’re overreacting.”

Viewers aren’t angry because people like the couple.
They’re angry because: their storyline overshadows Heesu completely, the emotional core of the show is ignored, and we lose the unique perspective we were promised.

If you go to a restaurant and order ramen, and they bring you pasta with a tiny spoonful of ramen on the side, you’re not “complaining.” You’re asking for the dish you paid for.

This drama had the potential to explore: unrequited love, fear of confession, queer longing, friendship vs. romantic tension, the pain of loving someone for a decade in silence. Instead of diving into that, the show sidelines him for a straight romance we’ve seen a thousand times.
This isn’t representation.
It’s a bait-and-switch.

It’s okay to enjoy the hetero couple, but also important to acknowledge the storytelling flaws. The issue is pretending that others are “complaining” just because they expected the actual main character to matter. This drama didn’t fail because of the side couple. It failed because the writers abandoned their own protagonist and when i say “fail” Im not talking about viewership. It failed as an adaptation and it failed to do any justice to the actual story. The show betrays its own synopsis.



Do you want everyone to just sit quietly and enjoy queer erasure?
Do you want viewers to pretend the protagonist doesn’t matter? To act like it’s fine for a queer-coded main character to be shoved aside in his own story, while a straight couple absorbs 70% of the screen time? Because that’s what you’re asking when you say: “Stop complaining.”, ”I love the straight couple!”,, “Others are just being dramatic.”

That is not “preference.”
That is not “unpopular opinion.”
That is erasure: narrative, emotional, and representational.


Perspective for those who “love the hetero couple”
Liking them isn’t wrong.
But loving them shouldn’t blind us to the fact that:
* the main character’s story was never allowed to grow
* his emotional world was overshadowed by arcs that weren’t even advertised
* the drama disguised itself as one thing and delivered another
* representation was teased but not honoured
It’s misdirection, imbalance, and lost potential. Viewers aren’t “complaining.”
They’re mourning the story that could have been, the story that was supposed to belong to Heesu.
What if you were the side character in your own story ? Now this is being done just because you are queer. If you were straight this wouldn’t have happened.


What If This Happened in Straight Dramas?
Imagine this
A straight drama is advertised as a story about a boy and girl who’ve grown up together, childhood friends on the brink of something more.
The synopsis tells us:
* He’s secretly loved her for years
* She’s his world
* Their friendship is fragile and precious
* And the drama will explore that emotional tension
So you press play, expecting their story.
Now picture what actually happens:

🎬 Episode 1 to 10…
Instead of seeing the childhood-friends-to-lovers arc we were promised, the show suddenly spends:
* 30 minutes of every episode following a random side couple
* Their family trauma
* Their love life
* Their arguments
* Their reconciliation
* Their career struggles
Meanwhile, the main girl, the reason you started watching gets:
* 3 scenes per episode
* no emotional development
* no progress
* no payoff
* no real story
You waited to see the tension between the main couple, right?
The longing?
The slow-burn?
The emotional explosion we were promised in the synopsis?
But the camera keeps running back to the side couple like they paid for the show.
Would viewers stay quiet?
Would they say, “Stop complaining! Let the side couple shine!”? Of course not…..

Why? Because narrative betrayal feels the same, no matter the genre.
The issue isn’t about sexuality.
It’s about storytelling integrity.
People would riot if:
* The Heirs sidelined Kim Tan and Eun Sang to tell a teacher’s love story.
* A Business Proposal replaced the main couple with the second lead’s cousin and their personal trauma.
* Kimi ni Todoke spent 8 episodes on the girl sitting behind Sawako.
Everyone would ask the same thing viewers of Heesu in Class 2 are asking now:
Why are the main characters being treated like background furniture?
Why is the advertised story being ignored?
Why are we watching someone else’s drama?


Criticism is how we demand better.
Better storytelling.
Better focus.
Better respect for the protagonist.
Better representation.
Criticism is how we say: “This character matters. His story matters. We want the show we were promised.”
It’s not hate. It’s accountability.
And if people feel more offended by criticism than by the actual erasure happening on-screen, then maybe they need to sit with why that makes them so uncomfortable.

Why adapt a compelling queer coming-of-age story when you can force-feed the audience a straight romance and sports melodrama no one asked for?

If you wanna ignore all this and praise the revolutionary drama that truly has never been done before, go ahead.

Read More

Awful plot. Tw : R*pe

The whole dynamic of the second couple is so wrong. R*ping someone is not okay in any world. Idc if he has a sad backstory , it doesn't justify violating someone he claims that he likes. He could have waited it out. The plot felt disgusting and wrong. I don't like how they make it seem like a guy getting r*ped is no big deal. This is so messed up , it was suffocating to watch. Would not recommend this.

Not y'all justifying r*pe when he clearly got him drunk and f'ed him while he was in a drunken state, if he was confident that his brother liked him , he wouldn't have done that. AND IF ANYONE DOES THAT TO A PERSON THEY LOVE THEY ARE F*CKED UP IN THE HEAD.

"They were in love" oh then why did he get his brother drunk? Why couldn't he keep it in his pants & WAIT UNTIL HE GOT A CLEAR YES BEFORE DOING IT? Why is violating someone okay just because you like them?
That is not the way to go about when you like someone.
"YES" IN A CLEAR CONSCIOUS MIND = CONSENT. Would that man give consent to his brother when he was not drunk? NO HE WOULDN'T. IDFC IF HE WAS IN DENIAL THAT HE LOVED HIS BROTHER OR NOT. THAT DOESN'T EXCUSE ANYTHING. THE BROTHER SHOULD HAVE WAITED IT OUT INSTEAD OF R*APING THE PERSON HE LOVED. THE BROTHER WAS DAMN SURE THAT HE WOULDN'T GIVE CONSENT THAT'S WHY HE GOT HIM DRUNK. FICTIONAL OR NOT, THIS IS WRONG. IN NO WORLD IS THIS OKAY.

People go watch movies or dramas to feel and escape reality and if this escape of yours includes justifying r*ape because the r*pist had a sad backstory or the victim was in denial of his feelings, you need therapy.

Read More