GigglySnickerDoodle

Don’t let @NadiaMaciel get you down or shake your confidence. You’re entitled to your opinion and you’re not wrong for having it

Don’t let @NadiaMaciel get you down or shake your confidence. You’re entitled to your opinion and you’re not wrong for having it

@NadiaMaciel is a BL fan? They sound more like a walking, talking bundle of bad vibes in human form

@NadiaMaciel is jealous of your intelligence

I recommend that they stick to playing in their mud puddle and leave the grown-up conversations to people who can behave like decent humans

We're discussing the gangster's soul. Souls don't have an expiration date or a birth certificate. They're not 4, 17, or 47. The gangster's body was 47, his soul is now in a 17/18-year-old body. That "47" might as well be written in a lost language for all the (ir)relevance it has to the situation

Someone needs to take @NadiaMaciel's internet away

The gangster's existence came to an end. His soul crashed on Yi Heon's couch. So, while there was ghostly possession happening, the physical relationship was still between Yi Heon and Se Kyung. It was Yi Heon's heart that was beating for Se Kyung, not the gangster's

Please apologize for spamming and harassing real people

"The fact that there are more series with couples with a large age difference does not mean that it is okay to stop normalizing it"

The existence of numerous straight relationships with large age gaps in media has already normalized the dynamic

You can't censor gay relationships with large age gaps and allow straight ones to pass without scrutiny. Start with censoring or banning straight media, then we will consider the gay relationships with large age gaps

From the way you speak, it's evident that the one who needs a psychologist is you. Grow up

Ratings aren't objective measures of quality or success. They are influenced by personal biases, social trends, and hype surrounding a movie/drama

Someone's interest in fictional relationships with "problematic" themes doesn't define their character. We aren't "mentally ill," "sick," "wrong," or in need of psychological intervention

Works of fiction have always explored complex, difficult relationships with varying age gaps, power dynamics, etc, as seen in popular straight dramas like Goblin where a 900+-year-old was in a relationship with a teenager. They didn't and don't face the level of censorship or banning that gay works face. Why censor this gay relationship that would've been an especially complex one? It wouldn't have been a relationship between a 47-year-old and a 17/18-year-old, it would've been a relationship between a 47-year-old's soul in a teenager’s body and another teenager. Examining it could've started conversations about what is or isn't a healthy relationship. Censorship shut down the conversations, implying that the audience is incapable of analyzing and judging the relationship for themselves. It's insulting and patronizing

You're hiding the "problem" from view and running away from it, it doesn't make the "problem" disappear. Instead of attacking real people for their enjoyment of a fictional relationship, consider why the producers chose to adapt a "problematic" source material. They read, it, they were interested in it. Were they "mentally ill," "sick," "wrong" or in need of psychological intervention? It's hypocritical to be "happy" that they are profiting from the very thing you claim to be opposed to

One of the worst Kdramas of 2024

0/10

I hate it

Worst Kdrama

Someone's interest in fictional relationships with "problematic" themes doesn't define their character. We aren't "mentally ill," "sick," "wrong," or in need of psychological intervention

Works of fiction have always explored complex, difficult relationships with varying age gaps, power dynamics, etc, as seen in popular straight dramas like Goblin where a 900+-year-old was in a relationship with a teenager. They didn't and don't face the level of censorship or banning that gay works face. Why censor this gay relationship that would've been an especially complex one? It wouldn't have been a relationship between a 47-year-old and a 17/18-year-old, it would've been a relationship between a 47-year-old's soul in a teenager’s body and another teenager. Examining it could've started conversations about what is or isn't a healthy relationship. Censorship shut down the conversations, implying that the audience is incapable of analyzing and judging the relationship for themselves. It's insulting and patronizing

You're hiding the "problem" from view and running away from it, it doesn't make the "problem" disappear. Instead of attacking real people for their enjoyment of a fictional relationship, consider why the producers chose to adapt a "problematic" source material. They read, it, they were interested in it. Were they "mentally ill," "sick," "wrong" or in need of psychological intervention? It's hypocritical to be "happy" that they are profiting from the very thing you claim to be opposed to

Ratings aren't objective measures of quality or success. They are influenced by personal biases, social trends, and hype surrounding a movie/drama

Someone's interest in fictional relationships with "problematic" themes doesn't define their character. We aren't "mentally ill," "sick," "wrong," or in need of psychological intervention

Works of fiction have always explored complex, difficult relationships with varying age gaps, power dynamics, etc, as seen in popular straight dramas like Goblin where a 900+-year-old was in a relationship with a teenager. They didn't and don't face the level of censorship or banning that gay works face. Why censor this gay relationship that would've been an especially complex one? It wouldn't have been a relationship between a 47-year-old and a 17/18-year-old, it would've been a relationship between a 47-year-old's soul in a teenager’s body and another teenager. Examining it could've started conversations about what is or isn't a healthy relationship. Censorship shut down the conversations, implying that the audience is incapable of analyzing and judging the relationship for themselves. It's insulting and patronizing

You're hiding the "problem" from view and running away from it, it doesn't make the "problem" disappear. Instead of attacking real people for their enjoyment of a fictional relationship, consider why the producers chose to adapt a "problematic" source material. They read, it, they were interested in it. Were they "mentally ill," "sick," "wrong" or in need of psychological intervention? It's hypocritical to be "happy" that they are profiting from the very thing you claim to be opposed to

Someone's interest in fictional relationships with "problematic" themes doesn't define their character. We aren't "mentally ill," "sick," "wrong," or in need of psychological intervention

Works of fiction have always explored complex, difficult relationships with varying age gaps, power dynamics, etc, as seen in popular straight dramas like Goblin where a 900+-year-old was in a relationship with a teenager. They didn't and don't face the level of censorship or banning that gay works face. Why censor this gay relationship that would've been an especially complex one? It wouldn't have been a relationship between a 47-year-old and a 17/18-year-old, it would've been a relationship between a 47-year-old's soul in a teenager’s body and another teenager. Examining it could've started conversations about what is or isn't a healthy relationship. Censorship shut down the conversations, implying that the audience is incapable of analyzing and judging the relationship for themselves. It's insulting and patronizing

You're hiding the "problem" from view and running away from it, it doesn't make the "problem" disappear. Instead of attacking real people for their enjoyment of a fictional relationship, consider why the producers chose to adapt a "problematic" source material. They read, it, they were interested in it. Were they "mentally ill," "sick," "wrong" or in need of psychological intervention? It's hypocritical to be "happy" that they are profiting from the very thing you claim to be opposed to

Ratings aren't objective measures of quality or success. They are influenced by personal biases, social trends, and hype surrounding a movie/drama

Someone's interest in fictional relationships with "problematic" themes doesn't define their character. We aren't "mentally ill," "sick," "wrong," or in need of psychological intervention

Works of fiction have always explored complex, difficult relationships with varying age gaps, power dynamics, etc, as seen in popular straight dramas like Goblin where a 900+-year-old was in a relationship with a teenager. They didn't and don't face the level of censorship or banning that gay works face. Why censor this gay relationship that would've been an especially complex one? It wouldn't have been a relationship between a 47-year-old and a 17/18-year-old, it would've been a relationship between a 47-year-old's soul in a teenager’s body and another teenager. Examining it could've started conversations about what is or isn't a healthy relationship. Censorship shut down the conversations, implying that the audience is incapable of analyzing and judging the relationship for themselves. It's insulting and patronizing

You're hiding the "problem" from view and running away from it, it doesn't make the "problem" disappear. Instead of attacking real people for their enjoyment of a fictional relationship, consider why the producers chose to adapt a "problematic" source material. They read, it, they were interested in it. Were they "mentally ill," "sick," "wrong" or in need of psychological intervention? It's hypocritical to be "happy" that they are profiting from the very thing you claim to be opposed to

Ratings aren't objective measures of quality or success. They are influenced by personal biases, social trends, and hype surrounding a movie/drama

Someone's interest in fictional relationships with "problematic" themes doesn't define their character. We aren't "mentally ill," "sick," "wrong," or in need of psychological intervention

Works of fiction have always explored complex, difficult relationships with varying age gaps, power dynamics, etc, as seen in popular straight dramas like Goblin where a 900+-year-old was in a relationship with a teenager. They didn't and don't face the level of censorship or banning that gay works face. Why censor this gay relationship that would've been an especially complex one? It wouldn't have been a relationship between a 47-year-old and a 17/18-year-old, it would've been a relationship between a 47-year-old's soul in a teenager’s body and another teenager. Examining it could've started conversations about what is or isn't a healthy relationship. Censorship shut down the conversations, implying that the audience is incapable of analyzing and judging the relationship for themselves. It's insulting and patronizing

You're hiding the "problem" from view and running away from it, it doesn't make the "problem" disappear. Instead of attacking real people for their enjoyment of a fictional relationship, consider why the producers chose to adapt a "problematic" source material. They read, it, they were interested in it. Were they "mentally ill," "sick," "wrong" or in need of psychological intervention? It's hypocritical to be "happy" that they are profiting from the very thing you claim to be opposed to

Ratings aren't objective measures of quality or success. They are influenced by personal biases, social trends, and hype surrounding a movie/drama

Someone's interest in fictional relationships with "problematic" themes doesn't define their character. We aren't "mentally ill," "sick," "wrong," or in need of psychological intervention

Works of fiction have always explored complex, difficult relationships with varying age gaps, power dynamics, etc, as seen in popular straight dramas like Goblin where a 900+-year-old was in a relationship with a teenager. They didn't and don't face the level of censorship or banning that gay works face. Why censor this gay relationship that would've been an especially complex one? It wouldn't have been a relationship between a 47-year-old and a 17/18-year-old, it would've been a relationship between a 47-year-old's soul in a teenager’s body and another teenager. Examining it could've started conversations about what is or isn't a healthy relationship. Censorship shut down the conversations, implying that the audience is incapable of analyzing and judging the relationship for themselves. It's insulting and patronizing

You're hiding the "problem" from view and running away from it, it doesn't make the "problem" disappear. Instead of attacking real people for their enjoyment of a fictional relationship, consider why the producers chose to adapt a "problematic" source material. They read, it, they were interested in it. Were they "mentally ill," "sick," "wrong" or in need of psychological intervention? It's hypocritical to be "happy" that they are profiting from the very thing you claim to be opposed to