Lalalalalala

Okay, then I misunderstood

Sure enough. I find it funny that you were so sensitive whenever people attacked you personally in the topics of TKEM and call it a right to criticize, but now that I am giving you a taste of your own medicine, you are calling me annoying.

Do not get me wrong, I appreciate your opinion. I am not necessarily attacking you, but I do not like it when people are able to look at the bigger picture when it comes to IC and not this drama. Saying that the drama is not that awful, because there was a lot of positive things going on is not a good excuse in my book. I mean Hitler gave us Volkswagen and dressed his officers in Hugo Boss. That does not mean that I felt that Hitler was a good man. Same with IC.

Hope you understand my sentiment a bit and please feel free to attack any of my opinions! Cheers!

I also see that you are a fan of Choi Woo Shik. Did you boycott his movie "Parasite"? They were mocking Native Americans. Choi Woo Shik was also sexually prowling on an underaged high school kid. You did not... you gave it even a 9.5

For racism, you need intent. The act in itself can be racially offensive, but that does not mean that that person is a racist.

Would you call all white hippies in San Francisco with dreads racist? What you are doing, is what I call selective outrage.

Thank you for this specific comment. Now we understand that your form of criticism is based on selective outrage. You exactly confirmed what I accused you of. Apparently you did not even watch IC and call it more positive than a drama that still has not finalized. We know for a fact that IC (because all 16 episodes have been aired) justified Kim Da-Mi's deplorable behavior, but we are still in the dark regarding this drama. Yes, the source material is problematic, but a director can deviate from the original. Cheese in the Trap is a famous example.

Such as? Kim Da-Mi's character being a racist against Tony? Her character not accepting her transgender colleague? Manipulating Geun Soo? Showing that persistence allows you to get the man? This is the story of the kettle and the pot.

Amruta1009 or Amy1009 should I say, are you joining your buddies Amy and Pranksalot again in social policing? Fine, if you want to do that, but do not disguise your intentions. At least, I admitted in the TKEM's topic that I might be harsh against TKEM because I am slightly blinded by the fact that I did not like LMH...

This might be an unpopular opinion. But what a lot of people do not realize is that we are socially programmed to think that anything remotely associated with being black is wrong.

For example, if you are born white and you want to look like your favorite black celebrity and you go the plastic surgeon and ask for a treatment to make your skin black, what would the reaction be? The plastic surgeon would refuse. But what if you are white, but you want to look like Jimin of BTS? People find it strange, but no one will hit you or sue you. There are enough surgeons who will help you fulfill your dream. Same with other cultures performing surgery to look more white. It is perfectly acceptable.

We should never mock or ridicule people based on their skin color. But people should also realize that criticizing people for wanting to belong to the black culture that they biologically do not belong to, is racist in itself. You are latently admitting that the black culture is less worthy than the white or Asian culture and that it is ridiculous that someone ever wants to belong to this group.

BTW, do not misinterpret me. I am not saying that blackface is okay. I am only pointing out that there is a stigma that black is bad both from the racist and the anti-racist side. The anti-racist screamers do not even realize how deep it is socially rooted into our systems. In fact, I think the social issue of racism can be solved much easier if we learn to look beyond just skin color: anyone must be allowed to associate with any culture they like.

Same here, same here... I was also eager to criticize TKEM when the opportunity arose. However, I have noticed that these same commenters that wrote negative comments on TKEM are actually finding their way to other dramas and their tone is again very loud and direct. This makes me wonder what their motive is. Initially I thought that they were being constructive, but I now see a pattern where they just scroll around every drama and write the most negative comments out there. They are like those professional demonstrators that demonstrate not because of the cause, but because they like demonstrating. These commenters might have a point, but their intentions are wrong.

Most people in Korea praise Kim Eung Soo for portraying a stellar Lee Man Shik. Just check the Korean online portals such as Naver. The only character that is (heavily) criticized for her bad acting is Lee Tae Ri. Or are you referring to the other intern with "the guy"?

You never know. The commenters that wrote thousands of comments on TKEM also found their way to this section.

I will not respond on everything you said, because there is a too big of a gap to bridge. So I respond to some statements.

Yes, every human has an inference bias. That is why we came up with DNA-tests and so on to make it less subjective. But even the greater legal system is designed to circumvent this bias by having a checklist-system in the forms of law and jurisprudence.

Do not belittle me by saying that you might as well lasso the moon, because that is 100% impossible, whilst my reasoning is not. Have you heard of something called a "sudden impulse"? It counts as a valid defense in court to justify any acts of irrationality. She could basically say: "I have never experienced this act of kindness, so I was so overwhelmed that I kissed him". In fact, the "sudden impulse" argument (if well played) can even allow you to get away with murder. Google the word "passion crime" for example.

How can I stop making you "lolling". By giving you 100 pieces of jurisprudence to prove that I am not joking? My question then is, how can you prove to me that her actions were not impulsive, but rather pre-meditated?

What I said might perhaps be laughable to you, but it is how it works. I did not make up the rules.

Let's place our bets. Will this show get more comments than TKEM? This show is way more controversial... Let's get our popcorn ready, boys and girls! There is a new show to argue about...

To be fair, I am not even sure why I am arguing with you. I do not consider the behavior of the ML and FL particularly normal, but I still try to defend it. Perhaps I look too much like my dad and mom who are lawyers... And I take a challenge in justifying the unjustifiable... Haha

It is also a bit of a cultural thing. Do you think that so many male Korean/Japanese fans like Twice or AKB48 because they like the music? Even if it is disgusting, at the end of the day it is still legal. I do not even know why I am even defending this drama, perhaps I just like to argue with everyone. Haha

15+ is not family friendly

But that is exactly my point. Murder is a very severe claim, because for murder you need malice aforethought. So even if two people witness the killing and they think it is murder, it does not mean that it is murder. If the two people hear Mr. A say "I am have been planning to kill you", you could argue that there is malice aforethought, but they do not have concrete evidence that he actually planned the murder. Those are only words. Look, if he showed a plan of attack, then maybe you could argue for murder. Manslaughter I can accept, but for murder the bar is way higher.

I'll admit that some of my examples are really unbelievable (such as I thought we had something special-argument), but do not be surprised that there are cases where it actually worked. Do not bluntly disregard it as if I am making a joke. For example, the scene where JCW gave her his number. Was he really gobsmacked or did he retract because he realized that he should not give it to her as it is not right to hook up with a high schooler (age gap)?

Even if there is even a slight bit of ambiguity, a lawyer can make it work. Because in the West (I'll assume you are from the West), you are not guilty until proven. But even in countries such as Japan, where you need to prove your own innocence, cases only go to court when there is direct evidence (not circumstantial evidence). I am just saying that you make your judgment very easily. But your view is always prone to an inference bias, because you cannot directly look into their heads. Our law systems are not perfect, but if we follow your way of thinking, there would be no order

We had a good conversation about what can be justified as sexual harassment and what not. I used the legal definition and you used a more emotional argument. That is totally fine. But now you are stretching it. What is wrong with sketching sexual things? No offence, but you are a bit of a snowflake.

If you want to really correct a population. Try correcting the Christians. In the Bible there are some very offensive passages, in particular in the Book of Leviticus or Exodus. For example, Exodus 21:7 "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are."

You know what the funny thing about my example is? If you have ever met a Christian, you will understand that they do not follow these passages. They are able to judge what is right from wrong. Same with this drama. Unless a person lacks any sense of judgment, they will not follow the example of JCW and KYJ

You know even in the West there is a high tolerance for these kind of cultural appropriation if it falls under the category satire.

The fact that the guy dresses up like and looks like a Rastafarian does not mean he is pretending to be a black person. If a white man is wearing a judo suit, does that make him racist because judo comes from Japan? If I see a bald person, do I have the right to call him a racist, because skinheads (who often are associated with racism) are also bald? If he painted himself black, wore offensive logos or any signs that are distinctively Jamaican/Rastafarian or even mocked them, then your statement holds more ground. I do not think that hairstyle is protected cultural heritage.

I am familiar with the UN-definition, but sexual harassment cases are never so black or white. Cat-calling is unpleasant, but not comparable with rape. I would not go as far as calling a cat-caller a sexual harasser, but rather a rude person with no respect for woman/man. I mean, technically, there is no sexual/physical action involved. Is thinking about something dirty and shouting it out aloud considered to be sexual (harassment) nowadays? I don't know, you tell me.

I am gonna give you another source. This time from Canada, perhaps one of the most PC countries in the world. https://nationalpost.com/news/is-an-unwanted-hug-and-kiss-sexual-assault-not-always-judge-rules-in-trial-of-ex-yukon-mla

Quote: "The person in question, twice hugged and kissed a female acquaintance on the lips — without her consent. In finding Laxton, 61, not guilty this week, Territorial Court of Yukon Judge John Faulkner wrote in his decision that unlike unwanted touching of breasts or genitals, hugs and kisses fall into a legal grey area where the context can run from “overtly sexual” to “entirely familial.”"

This example is more extreme than Backstreet Rookie, because KYJ only kissed him once. The biggest deciding factor to the judge whether your argument holds ground is based on the concept of "consent" and "familiarity"(where consent is more important than familiarity). I think you might win on familiarity. I think I agree with you that they are not familiar enough with each other. But even this is actually debatable. They had a conversation, so they knew each other (sort of...). It is not like she drugged him, dragged him home and kissed him. The second is consent. What is consent? Signing a contract, giving verbal permission or (mis)reading social cues? Clearly KYJ felt special, because she said that no one has ever treated her like that before. A good lawyer can play the consent-card and the judge might even follow him in this reasoning. If JCW clearly shouted that she must stop, ran away or pushed her away, then there is no consent. So this is a legal grey area. Finally, it is also not clear whether it was sexual in nature. I think it was (especially in a conservative country such as Korea), but it is perfectly normal to kiss each other in Southern-Europe or the Middle East. "Sexual" is not a well-defined concept.

Having said that, I am actually playing the devil's advocate over here. I think there is actually a case for sexual harassment, but the reason why I defend them is because I dislike the overly quick judgment of many people. Sexual harassment is a criminal offence. You need to have solid and unambigious proof to qualify someone as a sexual harasser. However, even judges have difficulties with these cases, so why use this word so easily? This makes me uncomfortable. People nowadays use big words like it is nothing:
- You said that you did not like my Afrohair. That is racist.
- You said that women can lift less than men. That is sexist.
- You said that you like the high heels I am wearing. That is sexist and sexual harassment.

You see what I am trying to say? We are not the ones to draw the line of what a criminal offence is, it is the judge who decides. That is why we - the people - gave them the power to rule over these kind of situations. As normal citizens, we can only dislike an action or call an action inappropriate, but not accuse someone of a criminal offence without proof. We can however say that we THINK that it is sexual harassment.