GigglySnickerDoodle

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

You're taking things too far

You’ve been spamming and calling real people "sick," telling them to "eat shit" and "go to a psychologist" for their engagement with certain fictional characters or relationships, but the only thing sickening is the toxicity you’re dishing out. Please take your foot off the spam pedal before you cause a digital traffic jam

The fight for gay rights is against external forces and internal struggles. There are homophobes and traitors in our own ranks

Thank you for standing against this censorship

The collaboration between Thailand, China, and Taiwan is already a recipe for greatness. Each country is bringing its special cultural ingredients to the mix (BL)

I'm with you. All that gay glory was meant to shine bright and be shared with the world, not censored

The mainstream entertainment industry is dominated by straight narratives, and society is homophobic. Disinterest in gay dramas might indicate a bias against gay people and relationships. Disinterest in straight dramas indicates a desire for more diverse, inclusive narratives. There's a difference between the two positions, you're not doing a bad thing

You say you're "destroying your life over BL," I say you're "living your best life." It's a matter of perspective. And the people who indulge in non-BL content aren't immune to addiction, they're hooked on something else. The addiction is real across all genres

I don't have updates on the drama yet, I'll keep an eye out for the news and let you know

As a seasoned, honest BL fan, most BLs are leagues ahead of this bromance (or bromances in general). I prefer to see two men locked in a passionate, heated embrace, exploring their romance with all the fervor of a teenager sneaking out for a midnight rendezvous, than just awkwardly fist bumping their way through a friendship

Someone who doesn't espouse prejudiced beliefs might still be influenced by subconscious biases. They'd feel discomfort when presented with characters or storylines that differ from their experiences, such as non-White characters, gay romance, etc. It's okay to critically examine that discomfort and ask why it exists

One potential question to ask people is whether they believe that e.g. gay relationships are "inferior" or "less valid" than straight relationships. If the answer is yes, their preference against gay romance is influenced by underlying homophobia. We can't immediately accuse them of homophobia, you have a point. We can take a more open-minded approach by having a respectful dialogue about their beliefs

The adaptation was mishandled in several ways. Not only did the producers censor original Yi Heon's sexuality, the reason behind the bullying, but they didn't explore the complexity of soul-swapping and its implications for the relationship between new Yi Heon and Se Kyung. The issue of mental age gap could've been addressed, by returning Yi Heon's soul to his body or including a time jump, during which Se Kyung would have had time to mature and develop into a more fully-realized individual to be able to pursue a relationship with new Yi Heon. If not, the producers could've at least adapted a different BL/gay story that didn't involve soul-swapping

Some of us BL fans who are also members of the community stand with you in condemning this kind of lazy censorship

When people become money-hungry and lose sight of everything else, it can come back to bite them in the wallet. They'd end up with less profit than if they had been more reasonable and considerate

Thanks for providing the source. I'll have to fast-forward through the "romance" if it turns out to be the focus of the story

Life is violent and humans are messy, violent creatures in fancy clothes who put on a show of civility. This so-called "retarded violence" is a part of the human experience. Fiction should be unafraid to reveal our ugly side

Why are people expecting a "romance?" Based on the summary, the story revolves around career slumps and terminal illness. It's better not to go into it with the wrong expectations. The "romance," if it's there, might not be the primary focus of the story

@madisonr2004, I didn't need to wait for an invitation to join this conversation

Feeling threatened by a competition in the comments section, are we? The likes are from lurkers who agree with or adore me

I'm sure blocking me will teach me a lesson and make me rethink my entire online presence that interrupted your regularly scheduled condescension (real example of sarcasm)

Are you sure? It's advertised as a romance/love story on Netflix, there will likely be romantic elements: https://x.com/netflix/status/1806462590530224384

"I'm pretty sure you know that" implies that you're not sure the other person knows, it can express the opposite of what you mean. "Orwellian thought police" uses a literary reference (from the book 1984 by George Orwell) to make fun of other people for disagreeing with your opinion, it's condescending. "Look at you all tough on the internet" is sarcastic and condescending, it implies that the other person is weak in real life but acts tough online

TLDR: your comments come across as sarcastic and condescending

You don't like sarcastic, condescending, or smug individuals, but you yourselves have been using sarcasm ("I'm pretty sure you know that") and condescension ("Orwellian thought police," "Look at you all tough on the internet," etc) when it suits your purpose

Life is rough, and if our comments are the worst thing you have to deal with, consider yourselves lucky

The bar for "bullying" is low these days

If a few words on a screen are what they consider "bullying," then I'm guessing their skin is made of tissue paper. A wisp of air will blow them away. They need to toughen up