DorianGrey101

I would have preferred a more supernatural ending. Also so many loose ends, so many ghosts running around but nobody is scared.
What's the point of seeing ghosts if the person being haunted is not afraid of them. I mean he was just stepping aside for them.

The synopsis calls them best friends but you don't get that impression that all.

What a boring movie. So they allow people with dementia and someone with autism to testify in court and in the process they also manipulate the person to sway the case.

She didn't know why the guy/father hated her . Her mum also didn't know the guy was the reason that her real biological father passed away. So their relationship was complicated but it wasn't her mum's fault.

Thanks to everyone mentioning, Art of the Devil now I need to find out what that's all about.

It's not scary or too dark just a bit on the disgusting side with some of the content. 🤢🤮

So cute, I love them loving each other though I feel like Hun Tuo loves more in the relationship.

But I like how they both just ran with it , sometimes I get tired of those BL dramas where they're both not so sure.

Of course the spineless husband won't say a thing after all he also didn't want to be in imprison.

So the police don't investigate or suspect anyone else. Surely, they can see that the evidence doesn't line up. Also weird that he wanted evidence and justice for his wife but doesn't say anything in the end.

It’s been fun watching your little meltdown and tantrums unravel in real time. You think you’re exposing me, but all you’ve done is expose yourself: fragile ego, desperate need for validation, and zero depth beyond your own story. No wonder you’re considered a troll around here — everyone sees the same pattern of noise without substance.

It’s been fun watching your little meltdown — spewing rubbish like a broken record, a true sign of intellectual defeat.

You’ve got nothing to say, which is why you hide behind insults and your overblown “lived experience” card like it’s a universal pass. Sorry, but it’s not. You’re not the voice of all oppression, and you never will be.

Nothing you’ve said has actually touched any point, and that’s why your ego is cracking under the weight of its own hot air.

So keep stamping your feet and typing in circles if it makes you feel important. From this side of the screen, it just looks like a clown show.

😂🤣😆

I'm surprised it's a 2024 movie, thought it was from 10 years ago by the quality and writing. It kept getting more absurd without any explanations.

First, you’re using appeal to personal experience as if your story automatically makes you an authority on everyone else’s oppression. Your experience is valid, but it isn’t the universal template.

Second, you’re doing whataboutism—instead of actually engaging with the harm of stereotypes, you pivoted the conversation into your life story. Nobody asked for that, and it doesn’t erase what was being discussed.

Third, you’re drawing a false equivalence between your suffering and the systemic realities faced by other communities. Each form of oppression is shaped by different structures and histories. Pretending they’re interchangeable just shows your lack of reflection.

Fourth, you’re relying on a strawman. You claim I’m “identity policing” or “screaming about people’s class/finances/ethnicity,” when all I did was point out how dismissing stereotypes is harmful. Twisting my words doesn’t make your point stronger—it just makes it obvious you can’t argue against what I actually said.

Fifth, your entire approach is ad hominem. You keep calling me “twit,” “flake,” “arrogant,” instead of sticking to the issue. That’s not an argument, it’s deflection.

And above all, you keep centering yourself. Every time someone points out broader systemic issues, you drag the conversation back to you. Listening to others without making it about yourself is the baseline of respect, and you can’t even manage that.

You don’t get to dangle your trauma as a shield to excuse minimizing other people’s oppression. Yes, being a gay man in a conservative state is its own lived oppression, but that doesn’t suddenly make you the authority or expert on racism, colonialism, or cultures you don’t belong to.

That’s where social location comes in—you can understand your position as a gay man in America, but you can’t speak from the social location of, say, an Indigenous person under settler colonialism, or a Black person under systemic anti-Blackness, or someone navigating xenophobia outside of your context. Different systems of power shape people’s lives differently.

Instead of acknowledging that, you center yourself, as if your story gives you universal insight. It doesn’t. Your social location gives you a lens, not the whole picture—and dismissing others’ realities because they don’t match yours is exactly the arrogance you accuse others of.

Lol, who are you to be asking my age, nationality, race— Gestapo, MI-15, FBI, Mossad? You running an intelligence agency or just role-playing interrogator on a drama forum?😂🤣

It’s telling that instead of engaging with the actual points I raised, you went straight for personal attacks — calling me arrogant, demanding to know my race and nationality, and even obsessing over what playback speed I watch dramas at. None of that has anything to do with the substance of the discussion.

Asking for my race or culture isn’t some neutral curiosity — it’s an attempt to discredit me or box me in. That’s how racism often plays out in subtle ways online: demanding credentials based on identity while ignoring the arguments made. People don’t need to reveal their demographics to speak about racism, oppression, or representation. The ideas should stand or fall on their own.

And about drama speeds — watching something at 1x or 2.5x doesn’t erase the themes, plots, or cultural patterns that we’re analyzing here. Pretending it does is just another way of avoiding the actual conversation.

So here’s the bottom line: if you disagree, then disagree with my points. Refute them. Bring evidence. But the moment you shift into insults, identity-policing, and irrelevant nitpicking, you’ve already conceded you don’t have much of an argument. That’s not debate — that’s deflection.

Ah yes, the classic projection. All you do is assume, attack, and inflate your own importance while refusing to address the actual points. Friend requests, lurkers, my so-called self-righteousness — none of that changes the fact that you’ve never had to confront systemic oppression, yet you pretend your personal anecdotes carry the same weight.

I never claimed to have lived ‘under all oppressive systems,’ but unlike you, I actually listen to and amplify the experiences of people who have. That’s called empathy, not a ‘White Savior act.’ And no, I don’t need to know your life story to point out the obvious: downplaying stereotypes and claiming they’re harmless is privilege in action. You keep dodging that fact while flailing about like it’s an attack on your ego.

The world doesn’t revolve around your perceived hardships or imaginary accolades. You’re just another loudmouth on the internet, desperate to look clever while missing every point.

There it is again — you can’t address the point, so you turn to cheap mockery and prying for personal details like it proves something. Classic troll tactic. My age or location doesn’t change the reality of what people experience. What it does show is that you’ve never had to live it, so you hide behind sarcasm instead of actually engaging. Thanks for confirming exactly what I said about you.

It’s not exactly a secret — it’s literally on my profile.

And there it is again — when you can’t defend your weak arguments, you dig up irrelevant nonsense and demand personal details. Watching dramas at any speed doesn’t change the fact that you have no depth in your thinking. You keep proving my point: you don’t engage, you just project and deflect. That’s why people call you a troll — because that’s all you’ve got.

You’re a well-known troll on these MDL forums, and everyone you interact with knows it. You don’t actually understand anything — you just parade around as a privileged person who’s never had to deal with the realities you dismiss. It’s not a lack of self-awareness on my end, it’s your lack of integrity, and people see right through it.

You hide behind faux ‘logic’ while derailing serious conversations with bad-faith arguments.And the way you keep centering everything on yourself proves it — instead of engaging with what’s actually being discussed, you twist it back to your own experience, as if your comfort and perspective are the only ones that matter.

Ah, the classic: “my friends called me kraut and we all laughed, so clearly racism isn’t that deep.” Do you hear yourself? You were never at risk of being dehumanized, profiled, or killed over “kraut.” That’s why it felt like a nickname to you — because you had safety and privilege. Comparing that to words used to justify centuries of violence is laughable.

And your “the line is just the N-word” take? Lazy. Power, history, and context decide what lands as harmful — not your personal comfort level. That’s why people from those communities get to decide when it crosses the line. You acting like referee just shows you’ve never actually been the target.

Also, crying “ageism” because someone said Boomer? Please. Being called Boomer isn’t stopping you from getting a job, housing, or walking home safely at night. Trying to equate generational teasing with systemic oppression is peak privilege cosplay.

So no, you didn’t just “prove the difference.” You proved you’ve never had to live it.

The fact that you immediately jumped to “why do you feel Indonesians/etc. are lower than Koreans” is telling — nobody said that. What was said is that mocking historically marginalized cultures is punching down. That’s not about inherent worth, it’s about power dynamics. Pretending not to understand that doesn’t make your argument stronger, it just makes it look dishonest.

And sure, you laughed at hanbok jokes on YouTube — but that’s your subjective reaction, not proof that they weren’t offensive. The idea that “I laughed, therefore it’s fine” is peak self-centeredness. It’s like saying a racist joke is okay because one person in the targeted group chuckled. That doesn’t erase the impact on others.

As for your “humor that’s clever, respectful, and inclusive doesn’t exist” argument — come on. Satire, irony, and observational comedy exist. Comedians like George Carlin, Hasan Minhaj, Hannah Gadsby, or even Korean comics who critique their own society prove you can be cutting, funny, and boundary-pushing without leaning on tired stereotypes about someone else’s race or culture. That actually takes skill — punching down doesn’t.

And no, comedy isn’t automatically “great” because it offends. By your logic, any cruel remark could be defended as “art.” The difference between boundary-pushing comedy and racist mockery is intent and impact. One challenges systems of power. The other just reinforces them.

What you’re calling a “wide line” is really just the privilege of not being on the receiving end. That’s why it’s easy for you to dismiss people raising concerns as “PC police.” For those who do get mocked, harassed, or dehumanized in real life because of those stereotypes, it’s not some abstract debate about comedy — it’s their lived reality.

So no, nobody’s head is exploding. But yours might be stuck in the sand.

I can't believe they kept blaming someone with dementia for his behavior. Shouldn't Naomi have admitted she was way in her head before making it seem like she was wronged. I found that rather bizarre.

Quoting Einstein doesn’t rescue a bad argument. There’s a difference between laughing at yourself and being reduced to a stereotype by others. Marginalized people don’t owe anyone laughter at their own expense just to ‘be taken seriously.’ That’s not wisdom — that’s gaslighting.”

When it came to injustice,Einstein was the opposite of “laugh it off.” He wrote and spoke strongly against racism, fascism, and antisemitism, and he openly condemned the U.S. for its treatment of Black people, even calling racism “America’s worst disease.

He believed that dignity and justice mattered more than mockery. For example, he was an outspoken member of the NAACP and supported civil rights leaders like Paul Robeson and W.E.B. Du Bois.

Using “Einstein said laugh at yourself” as a way to minimize racism or stereotyping, is actually against Einstein’s real philosophy. He was very clear: when prejudice harms people, you don’t shrug or laugh it off — you confront it.