portia7mcg

Agree, way to skinny before, and if she has lost more weight, its definately not healthy.
Being slim is good, but not anorexic.

Many Asian languages (like Mandarin, Korean, and Japanese) don’t mark gender in spoken pronouns. Subtitles are now commonly generated or assisted by AI which is why you’ll see errors like mixed-up “he” and “she.” Which makes it hard to follow a story when there are many characters.

Takes a long time to process, we are now in 2026

2ml is a young actor… I reckon his character is on the spectrum, devoid of emotion and facial expression. So yes, his personality is not appealing as the ml, who is older, and a more mature character. I think the 2ml plays that part perfectly.

I can’t complain about the view…I can’t believe I said that 🥸. I think the fl is v good too. I love her relationship with her cousin, it’s sweet.

40c here today, perfect day for the aircon and binge watch. Up to Ep. 6, and definitely will keep on watching. Slow burn.

As storylines go, episode 1 set the scene. What is showed was the extent of Han-yeong’s corruption, his guilt, and what is at stake. I did enjoy E1, and if you enjoyed it, that is actually a good sign. it setup the moral and the overall tone, lets now enjoy what the story unfolds. Let the fun begin...

I’m not dismissing history, nor am I excusing the lack of state accountability. I’ve been clear about that from the start. My point is about proportionality and responsibility, unresolved historical failures belong to governments, not individual actors. Disagree if you like, but reframing my position as “ignoring history” is incorrect.

I agree that accountability should sit with aggressors and institutions, not victims. Where I still differ is in how that unresolved institutional failure gets redirected onto individual actors.

I understand why sensitivities are heightened, especially given the lack of sustained acknowledgement at a state level. At the same time, allowing every individual incident to escalate in proportion to that broader failure risks blurring responsibility rather than resolving it.

Wanting clarification is a reasonable expectation. Treating silence as justification for punishment is where I remain cautious. That approach may explain reactions, but it doesn’t necessarily make them proportionate or constructive.

I don’t disagree that the history is well known, or that denial and lack of accountability at an institutional level are still serious issues. My point was never about excusing the past or asking anyone to forget it.

Where I differ is in shifting the weight of that unresolved accountability onto an individual actor, based on a comment made years ago and then amplified through media framing. Asking for clarification is reasonable. Treating silence or delay as moral failure is where I become cautious.

Acknowledgement matters, but so does proportionality. If accountability leaves no room for reflection, learning, or growth without public pressure, it risks becoming punitive rather than constructive. That’s the distinction I was trying to make.

but was it quoted, word for word, or are we relying on how the media interpreted what he said.

I understood the sarcasm. My response wasn’t about missing it, it was about the message it reinforces. Even sarcastic comments can contribute to pile-ons in heated discussions. Pointing that out is a choice to focus on impact, not a failure to understand tone.

This is where I differ. Asking for clarification is reasonable, but treating silence as guilt makes forgiveness conditional. I was arguing for space to learn and grow, not public performances of apology.

I understand the need for acknowledgement, but forgiveness that is indefinitely withheld until certain actions occur feels more like punishment than reconciliation. My point was about leaving room for growth, not denying harm.

I don’t think the article helps. It frames a complex issue in a way that fuels outrage rather than understanding, and it feels one-sided rather than balanced. The way it’s written turns discussion into a pile-on, especially when important context is stripped away. It does make me wonder how journalists are being taught to handle sensitive topics.

I’m not sure if that was meant rhetorically, but it raises an important question, where does it end? Accountability matters, but prolonged public pressure can become harmful. There needs to be space for learning, not just punishment.

I agree that learning from history is important. At the same time, for many people this isn’t just something from the past, so it helps to approach it with care and understanding.

I think this is part of the issue. Every country teaches history differently, and unless someone studies it in depth, they may not know the full picture. That doesn’t excuse harm, but it does help explain why perspectives can differ so much.

Yes, war leaves deep scars and there are many things that should never be forgotten. But I also believe remembering doesn’t have to mean holding on to anger forever. We can acknowledge the harm, learn from it, and still allow space for forgiveness and growth. That’s how history teaches us, rather than trapping us in it.

It was part of a Fuji TV memorial program in 2015, focused on remembering the human cost of the war. At the time, it wasn’t considered controversial or about glorifying war. I’m not saying people shouldn’t feel hurt, but I do think it helps to consider the context and the time in which it was said.