Sue Denim

You know what, this is exhausting. There's obviously some miscommunication happening. You're not getting what I'm saying and I'm not getting you either. I'm explaining my original post over and over again and you're off on another tangent obsessing and feeling the need to defend at the end of the day what is a fictional character. I can bet anything that nobody on this thread would be defending the ML as hard if not for the fact he was conventionally attractive (emphasis on the 'as hard', I know you're not great at relativeness and nuance in language). It's getting ridiculous. I think we'll have to agree to disagree as I had already proposed several posts ago.

P.S. Apologies at the use of condescending language, I was frustrated at the fact that you were not getting my point of the fact that my original post was primarily an observation about how actresses playing FL receive hate for portraying negative traits more than (if not at all) men and that showrunners should show more due care to that. Yet, you were so offended and ready to die on that hill with the usage of commonly used term for your favourite, in a sentence, used to contextualise this. However, there's no need for all that melodrama about family, friends and goals. Mentioning your displeasure at my language would have been sufficient and you would still be right.

And about me caring whether or not you believe I am creating multiple accounts to like my own posts, forget it. I can't. I just can't. I've already admitted to liking my own posts, what would I have to lose by admitting I've created more accounts to do the same? But it's funny, I see that.

Dude! Are you not getting the point or what??? The main point in my original post was about how creating an adaptation of something that already exists in another form and altering to favour the ML does the opposite to the FL and ultimately the actress. I clarified this in my first reply to you given below along with clarification my usage of the term red flag.

'My point wasn't actually about being a red flag or anything related to your reply. Yes, I used these commonly used words like 'red flag' in the comment to get the actual point across but you could potentially use substitutions for these that didn't correspond to a colour or was 'Tik-Tok' language but the point would still be the same. My comment merely came from a place of fear of sensing a hate train towards the FL which in turn usually goes against the actress playing it.'

This is where it should've ended! Then you decided it would be a good idea to educate someone on a frickin' fictional character. I DON'T care whatever word you would put instead of it, my point would still remain the same which is nothing to do with what you were rambling about! This was my question! Not what you've made it out to be! Why were you going on and on with your male apologist agenda under my original post which was unrelated to which you have not given me an answer. So why are you blatantly lying?

Also, you need to take some of your own advice. Where the hell does perspective vanish to when it comes to someone else's opinions, huh? You yourself have made an assumption that the first sentence in my original post insinuates something as true as 'The Sun rises in the east' when actually you have made the assumption and bashing me for an assumption you have made about me and my post. Your assumption is not my truth silly. How can you assume that that's what I insinuated doofus? I have mentioned my intent of the post again and again and again. The first sentence is not what's relevant FGS.
But even if I played along with your assumption, to me, if someone says that X is a red flag, all I take from that is that they exhibit traits that do not contribute to healthy romantic relationships. Not that they are a bad person in general. Maybe in your culture it is. For me, it doesn't mean that person will not be good at other things so can you accuse me of assuming they are 1 dimensional? I even said 'less of a red flag'. I even used the relative form which could never be used to describe a 1 dimensional thing. This actually insinuates both have more to offer than the behaviour they exhibit in a romantic relationship.

P.S. Not that you would believe nor do I care, I admitted that I liked all my posts once and I have no shame in that. This second account theory of yours is wrong this time Holmes. Even I just saw the second ones as you mentioned them.

And no, you cannot read nor can you see.

You are just blatantly lying now...When? When the hell did I say that there was nothing else to the character??? I have clarified my usage of the term 'red flag' and how it's usage was relative many a times now and if anyone was going on about the characters, it was YOU! Since you think you're so smart just by stalking how many likes I get on my comments and their source, I'm going to assume you're pretending to be dumb and not actually dumb to prolong this. You have not actually answered any of the actual questions I have raised because you know you're in the wrong and are going round in circles on purpose...

P.S. I don't care if you can tell whether I like my own posts or not. It's not illegal or immoral. It doesn't take Einstein's level of intelligence either to figure it out before you feel incredibly proud of yourself. Also, thanks for reminding me to like all of them. I had left out a few.

More than 1 incident now, isn't it? Yet, I don't think you're going to give up your male apologist agenda ever.

Darling, calling people red flags or green flags does not imply that's all there is to them and it never has. I don't know why you act like only you understand this and discovered this yourself and know better than anyone else or something. Also, this is where I was saying you are cannot see the forest for the trees. I used the first 'sentence' which I included the term 'red flag' (that too in relative terms and clarified its usage in a later comment) to contextualise the main point and yet you are still hung up on this term and make everything about it and keep putting words in my mouth about how I am judging fictional characters and determining their worth??? As I said before, you're the one giving long ass character certificates to these characters...Not me...

P.S. 1 incident??? What a joke! Are you still on Episode 1?

For heaven's sake, what is your problem??? My original comment was about how toning down the bad traits of the ML in the series relative to the book may cause hate towards the FL and in turn the actress because unfortunately if you weren't societally aware, this happens to female actors. You're were the one patronising me trying to educate me about frickin' fictional characters! You keep putting words in my mouth when I've never said that the respective characters are one dimensional! You're the one with the agenda! In fact, this whole thread has been me trying to explain my original comment and you giving character descriptions which wasn't what this was about and didn't ask you for! How many times do I have to repeat myself??? In future, understand that your male apologist agenda can be made in standalone posts and still get just as much engagement...

Yeah, that was probably the most cutting remark he made amongst others. But the question is, did he clarify that to the FL or stuff his mouth with tissue paper like he usually does when it's important and take it out only when it's to talk rudely.

As someone who had toxic parents themselves, I would forever never understand why they themselves would treat their own child, partner or anyone else the way they were treated. Do they suddenly forget how that made them feel? Why would they want anyone else to go through what they did?

So basically the ML treats the FL like his father treated him. Why, just why, would you treat your partner like your child??? Dumb.

It's OK, I've come to realise you couldn't see the forest for the trees in my original comment.

The whole point is what you wanted to 'discuss' was not related to what I was saying in the first place! I keep having to say this over and over again! We're going round in circles because you're avoiding the point! I have no problem with you having an opinion! I just do not understand why it was a reply to MY original post when it wasn't what it was about! Not sure if this is YOUR first time on MDL or in general replying to anything at all but a 'reply' is a response related to the original post which it wasn't!
Also, how did you assume I hadn't considered your perspective just because I don't agree with you? I considered it and didn't agree with it. Simple. I assumed that was legal. Could I also not accuse you of the same just because you have a different perspective? That you did not consider mine? Ridiculous.

Discuss all you want. I just didn't get why it was under my comment as a 'reply' as it felt completely detached from my original comment and its intentions. It would've been fine for it to be a post on it's own because it wasn't related to mine.
Also, don't come at me with the toxic humility sarcasm. It's very annoying. I did not claim my perspective was any more important than yours at any point, I respectfully stated clearly that 'I agree to disagree' not that 'You're wrong here, I'm right.

Again, nothing to do with what I was saying. I have not denied anything you're saying in my previous comments so I don't know why you're trying to educate me about the characters and their intentions when that's not what I wanted to put across. If it wasn't clear the first time, I think I did make it clear the second. Also, have to agree to disagree with a part of a previous comment you made that I hadn't noticed earlier and saw now about you claiming that 'at the core they are the same'. I think they are very different people but that doesn't mean relationships between different people are bad anyway so it doesn't matter.

My point wasn't actually about being a red flag or anything related to your reply. Yes, I used these commonly used words like 'red flag' in the comment to get the actual point across but you could potentially use substitutions for these that didn't correspond to a colour or was 'Tik-Tok' language but the point would still be the same. My comment merely came from a place of fear of sensing a hate train towards the FL which in turn usually goes against the actress playing it.

Unpopular opinion and different take on the conversation between the main leads in the last episode. I kinda liked that part. Most people suggest that both are equally poor at communication but in this specific instance, the FL was literally so explicit with everything she had to say. It was the male lead being too egoistic to feel like he was answerable to her. I know the main part of the conversation was about the ML and his best friend but for me personally, my favourite part was when she refused the snowboarding gift and said she wouldn't be able to use them because she would never be able to afford skiing. I think this is so important and was not expecting a character to say this on screen before she did. It highlights how the ML needs to become more sensitive towards not only her feelings but also circumstances which despite being as smart as he claims to be, he clearly doesn't understand.

It's annoying how in order to make the ML look like less of a red flag, they're making it look like the FL is. I wish the makers had considered the fact that the consequences of being a woman with red flags are worse than when a man has them. It is easier to hate on a female than a male especially if the male is conventionally good looking.

Has the second part been postponed AGAIN??? How many times is this now? I don't think Viva is that fussed about releasing considering how much more worse they managed to make it from Season 1.

Has the second part been postponed AGAIN??? How many times is this now? I don't think Viva is that fussed about releasing considering how much more worse they managed to make it from Season 1.

Absolute s**tshow. The screenwriters' mental age has never surpassed infancy.

Unpopular opinion: The series and the finale episode was underwhelming.
However, it was really thoughtful and considerate of them to acknowledge the audience at the end of the episode.

How do 30-40 year old actors agree to do this crap? I'm 20 and this is the worst pile of garbage I've skimmed through