Floki

Of course it was serious enough to warrant cancellation, because it's not up to certain fans to decide what counts as "bad enough" in the first place. When an actor’s behavior disrupts not only their own set but also affects their partner, poisons the atmosphere of an entire production, and creates a toxic environment for other actors and crew, then yes, cancellation is absolutely justified.

Her actions even impacted the promotion of shows she wasn’t directly involved in. Hopefully, she’s learned from her mistakes, because she is a talented actress, but her behavior was undeniably unacceptable and harmful.

Deserving a second chance doesn’t mean we should ignore the consequences of her actions or forget how they affected people’s lives and careers.

Part of the appeal of K-dramas, for me, was that they were written with a defined length, maybe not always perfectly executed, but you typically got a clear beginning, meaningful turning points, and an end. Then Netflix stepped into the niche, took the formula, and turned it into something hyper-consumeristic. We now have forced sequels that don't even have the same vibe of the original work. Judging by some of the ratings, it seems like neither the production team nor the viewers really understand what made the first season great.

I completely disagree, he plays a leading role in most of his dramas, and several are highly regarded both in ratings and critical consensus.

At the end of episode 08.

I disagree that he was obliged to respond, there are several cases where public figures chose not to speak to the media right away. He may have felt obligated, yes, but ultimately, it was a choice, and he could have taken a different path. In fact, many now agree that his public response ended up causing more damage; from a strategic standpoint, it was a misstep.

I would argue that the media holds even more responsibility for what happened than the Korean netizens. They allowed the narrative to spiral. The hive mind only functions when it's given space to operate, and blaming the hive mind is almost like blaming no one, since it’s made up of countless anonymous individuals. Occasionally, legal action is taken against the most extreme offenders, but that alone won’t stop this phenomenon from happening in the future.

Considering that she took her life on his birthday, I believe there's more to this than just public criticism. It’s also worth noting that public figures often attempt to manipulate public perception, sometimes successfully, sometimes not. And when they use the media and public opinion to their advantage, they also risk having it turn against them.

I actually addressed this point earlier, it's part of holding the media more accountable and taking action when necessary. The platform itself bears responsibility for what happens there, and you won’t stop people from behaving this way if it’s allowed to continue.

Everyone should agree that bullying and insulting others is not okay, but you won’t stop it by going after individuals one by one. The only real way to prevent it is for platforms to improve their moderation and take a more proactive role.

I understand why you feel that way, but it's important to remember that both parties made the choice to go public with the information they had. The parents chose to pressure KSR’s former agency and KSH, pushing for an apology. This could have been resolved behind closed doors, but since they weren’t satisfied, they brought the matter into the public eye.

Once one side goes public, the other often feels compelled to respond, though they’re not obligated to do so. There have been cases where one party chose not to speak for months or even years. While that approach doesn’t always "look good" publicly, it can also help avoid further damage, especially if there’s a risk of being caught in a lie.

At this point, both sides are clearly trying to shape public perception in their favor. By doing so, they’re engaging in a dangerous game, turning the public into the court long before it ever reaches a legal one.

You raise an interesting point, he was always more powerful than her, and others have mentioned that he had the connections within the industry (including the media) to do as he pleased. There’s even some information regarding this in relation to the movie "Real".

Sometimes, trying to do something can cause more damage, especially when the person you're facing holds so much power. I still think she made a few mistakes, and posting that picture probably wasn’t the best decision, but it’s understandable that she might have felt it was the only way to get a response.

I agree that taking action might have affected her career, but if there had been someone supervising her while she was away or on set, I don’t think KSH would have necessarily tried to make a move. Sometimes, dissuasion is the best option you have, though it doesn’t always work or prevent harm. Ultimately, whatever was done wasn’t enough, and given the toxicity of this industry, I strongly believe children should be protected much more (and by more people than just the parents).

I believe there are far more important details to this whole situation, and this particular aspect doesn’t fully represent the bigger picture. There could be many reasons why he chose not to say her name, one of which is that he might have been too affected to do so. While I can understand why some people would have preferred him to say her name, I don’t think it necessarily means what others believe it does.

To clarify, I wasn’t suggesting that you picked a side. I just wanted to address this specific point that I’ve seen brought up a few times since the conference.

It’s easy to assume that people should react to trauma the same way you believe you would in a similar situation, but it’s incredibly difficult to truly put yourself in their shoes, especially since we will never know the full story.

Based on the information we have, we can reasonably assume that he groomed her, starting when she was around 15 years old. A relationship with someone over a decade older inevitably creates a significant power imbalance. As a teenager, your perspective on the world is still developing, and if an adult influences the way you think and who you become, it can shape your personality and life choices in ways that may last forever.

While she is ultimately responsible for her own life decisions, there is much more behind her choice that we should consider. The impact of others, particularly those close to her, can play a significant role in such decisions, and we shouldn't minimize their influence. This is especially important when we know that he may have had an influence on her since she was just a teenager.

As I mentioned in my post, "it’s not uncommon for people to take action only after the fact rather than stepping in to prevent something bad from happening."

The same pattern applies to laws, many only change after tragedy strikes. Right now, their actions are likely driven by a mix of revenge and a sense of justice. Back then, if I recall correctly, they stated that he was going to take responsibility, which suggests they were initially okay with the relationship. However, we still need clarification on the timeline to fully understand their stance at the time.

I wouldn’t consider it all that strange, it’s not uncommon for people to take action only after the fact rather than stepping in to prevent something bad from happening. There’s also the question of whether KSR would have been okay with her family taking action against KSH while she was alive. Either way revenge is a very strong emotion.

That said, I do believe they should have done much more, especially to prevent her from getting involved with someone his age when she was still a teenager. While it’s not unusual for people to act only after a tragedy, it’s still disheartening to see. Of course, we’re assuming they didn’t do enough at the time, but that’s because there’s no information suggesting otherwise, and the events that unfolded support the idea that they didn’t take significant action.

I've seen people interpret the fact that he didn’t mention her name as narcissistic. While I don’t buy into his act and believe the authorities should investigate, I also think it’s unfair to force someone to say a name in such a situation. He could have mentioned it but chose not to, just as anyone who has lost a loved one might struggle to say their name. Whether it was a calculated decision or a sign that he is genuinely affected by her loss, we can't say for certain.

You argue that he made things about himself, but wasn’t that the very purpose of this conference? People asked him to share his perspective and feelings regarding the issue. You approached this with an open mind, but perhaps also with an expectation that he would say something different, maybe shifting the focus onto KSR instead of addressing his own responsibility in the matter.

Don't get me wrong though, I don’t believe anything he has said so far. He seems to be adjusting his narrative as new information emerges, which suggests he is being cautious about what he reveals and what he withholds. I also believe he groomed her and that he is a predator, based on both the available evidence and what other celebrities have said about him. Of course, that is my opinion based on what we know so far.

Celebrities achieve immense popularity not just because of their talent but also due to their carefully crafted public image, which they and their agencies strategically use throughout their careers. While I understand your perspective, it makes sense that someone who was once idolized would also face equally extreme reactions when facing a controversy. It’s common for public opinion to swing from one extreme to another, especially in South Korea, where celebrities are often expected to represent the nation and uphold exemplary behavior.

This is why you can’t have it both ways, you can’t expect the public to elevate celebrities to immense fame while also ignoring scandals involving them.

However, what does need to change is the way information and scandals are communicated to the public. Facts should be thoroughly verified, and media outlets must be held accountable for their reporting, as misinformation can significantly influence public perception.

Additionally, wealthy and powerful individuals often receive a free pass due to their status. In many cases, it is only because of public pressure that authorities are compelled to conduct proper investigations instead of allowing such issues to go unnoticed.

While people might understand the phrase, it’s not the most common way to describe K-drama fans globally. Judging by the comment section, it also caused confusion for many. Given the negative connotation of the word "cult" and the intensity of some K-culture fanbases, I still believe it was a poor choice of wording.

I don’t think commenting is the issue, the lack of moderation is. Additionally, I’m not a fan of having news about public figures' personal lives on this site. It would be better to have a separate platform or category for that kind of content.

This isn’t about personal preference, public figures are subject to scrutiny and judgment. They benefit from public opinion and sometimes manipulate it in their favor, so it’s only fair that people also hold them accountable when they believe they’ve done something wrong. That doesn’t mean harassment is acceptable, but there should be space for discussion and reactions before things escalate. This situation also highlights how public figures influence society. In South Korea, they are (unfairly) held to unattainable standards, but even so, they are expected to set a good example.

What I do know is that there is a lot of incriminating evidence against KSH, making the public’s reaction unsurprising. I don’t agree with people calling him a pedophile, not only because it’s inaccurate, but also because there isn’t enough information to form a final judgment yet. That said, I support freedom of speech as long as it remains reasonable. It’s fair to discuss the situation and question the information coming from both his agency and the opposing side.

I’m not particularly concerned about KSH’s financial losses. What matters is whether authorities will investigate his and his agency’s role in KSR’s suicide. According to the family's statement, she was pressured by them, and her suicide occurring on his birthday is a significant detail.

Additionally, it’s not uncommon for powerful, wealthy individuals to evade consequences. This is why public pressure matters, not to harass those who are innocent until proven guilty, but to remind authorities that wrongdoing shouldn’t be ignored. When public figures engage in misconduct, scandals are inevitable. People will judge based on the available information and form their own opinions. Those opinions aren’t always correct, but they are unavoidable.

The only way to prevent harassment is through stronger moderation on platforms that share these events. It’s the responsibility of these sites to maintain a fair and respectful space.

You claimed their definition was wrong, but it’s not. If you look at this comment section, along with many others discussing this situation, you’ll see countless people using that term. The OP explained the terminology, and someone else confirmed its accuracy by linking a source.

You also know that people were intentionally misusing the word to "get their point across and express their disdain in one word." How does that help anyone? All it does is distort the conversation and gaslight people.

This is simply not a valid reason to use the wrong term, and it shouldn’t be accepted, especially considering that there are victims of both pedophilia and ephebophilia. Using incorrect words is a sign of ignorance. I fail to see how appearing uninformed, let alone trying to justify it, would make an argument any stronger.

"Usually the pattern of these stories", based on what data, exactly?

What you believe might not align with reality. You also need to accept that others have just as much right to voice their opinions as you do. And by your own logic, if commenters were doing something illegal, they could be sued, and a court of law would handle it, right? I’m sure you can see how this creates a double standard and that legal action isn’t always the definitive solution to every issue. Some things are simply harder to prove, but that doesn’t mean nothing illegal happened.

You're also speculating about what KSR would have wanted, yet she took her own life on KSH’s birthday. If anything, that does little to support your argument.

You*, don’t justify the incorrect use of the term by associating yourself with unspecified groups. Just because most people don’t care about the distinction doesn’t make it acceptable to use the wrong word. Educate yourself and use the correct terms, it will benefit you (and others) more than refusing to do so.

Resorting to ad hominem attacks weakens your argument, regardless of the point you're trying to make. You can debate whether the term is relevant, but calling people names just because their opinion differs from yours is not justified.

In this case, you're also attempting to defend the incorrect use of the word. Words have specific meanings, and the other user was right to clarify the distinction. This isn’t about excusing KSH’s behavior, but misusing the term can be harmful to actual victims of pedophilia, as it describes a very specific attraction to a defined age group. Being attracted to teenagers is just as problematic, and it is equally important to use terms accurately and responsibly.