Wonderbread

I was reading the synopsis above and there is one part that piqued my interest "Here, Saet Byul and Dae Hyun’s love story begins as they heal the wounds of the heart, gain love, and become adults dreaming of the future". This sounds very idealistic and something I could hardly detect in the first two episodes.

Perhaps the director is slowly building towards a story that deals with social issues and prejudices. That can also be the reason that the dreadlocks guy was inserted in the series. There might be something more behind all this madness. It would not be the first time that a very serious topic is told through comedy. Roberto Benigni's Life Is Beautiful is such a movie. The director is also inspired by the movies of Stephen Chow and Quentin Tarantino, so perhaps he is trying to tell the story in an artistic way. Tarantino never straightforwardly serves his plot with the audience , but with twists and turns AND very offensive scenes.

The problem is that I heard the source material (the webtoon) is very weak with no real depth, so I do not really have a lot of hope. But I'll watch a few more episodes, because I cannot believe that a good director, two famous actors and SBS would film it and put it at the most important slot of the week if the plot is this razor thin.

But the effect is different. Whilst this drama will be dying a slow death and people will slowly built up hate against JCW and KYJ, the other one has lifted the careers of both PSJ and KDM. I do not like to position BR as victims, but in essence they are. The big fish (IC) is able to survive the criticism, whilst the little guy is taking all the heat and getting petitions left and right (BR). The argument "it's been done" is a simple one, racism etc. is never done. But you are right in a sense that we cannot really do anything about the directing/plot of IC anymore. But I am happy that IC did not win any major categories at the Baeksang's. The organization behind the awards wanted to reward socially relevant dramas. In my opinion, IC does not fit the bill as YS with her backward worldviews and manipulative behavior ended up as the winner by getting the guy. WTCM was a worthier winner, because every good or bad character was able to redeem him/herself. That drama was truly socially relevant... IC was not, so I do not agree with these fan comments accusing Baeksang for mistreating IC by not nominating them or allowing to win big awards. Just my two cents... Anyways, this is not necessarily pertains to you as you were not defending IC, but more to my general belief that pointing out hypocrisy is not a bad thing.

I am not using it as an excuse. I am only saying that so that people are aware that racism/ sexual harassment is not only present in this show, but actually in most kdramas. Even if you are able to sabotage this drama, the problem is still not solved. It takes a wider stance to solve these kind of problems, not some selective outrage on some low-budget drama that is doing okayish in viewership and is only internationally accessible on a small streaming platform...

It would be more impactful to attack Itaewon Class which has sent the same messages as BR, because it has a bigger reach in terms of viewership and streaming platform. If you manage to sabotage that series, people will realize how politically incorrect this drama is. The truth is that with Itaewon Class, the majority is still very positive (some even calling it the best kdrama ever). Such a plea is ridiculous... But it is not wrong to tell people that the problem is systemic and not only part of this drama.

I do not think that there is anything wrong with pointing the bad things of this drama. People also have the right to tell you to stop. It is up to you to decide whether you want to adhere to their request or not. I also do not think that there is anything wrong with pointing out that people are hypocrites. If you do not tell them, they will not realize it. It is human decency to address people's biases and flaws.

I am not. You can respond to them by saying: "You are not the one to silence me. I have the right to share my opinion."

Your approach however is the same as their approach by adding another sentence to it (I am paraphrasing here, these are not your exact words): "You are not the one to silence me. I have the right to share my opinion. If you do not like it, then open your own fan page."

Hereby you are disregarding their opinion in that you are annoying them, but only care about your pushing your own opinion. You are trying to solve a conflict with another conflict.

Anyways, it is difficult explaining it. I only try to say that there is some circularity in your reasoning. It is more my philosophical look at things. It is as abstract as asking questions such as "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

No, you straight up disobey their request and continue preaching what you believe in, in the hope that others will hear your voice. You need to understand that these people are not your audience, so you should not target your opinion towards them but to others

It becomes a bit of a thinking experiment. So let me explain what I meant with "It is equally as wrong to tell people to stop telling you to stop". It screws my brain up as well... People tell you to limit your criticism about the show or take the highway, but you reply that they should stop limiting your criticism or they can take the highway themselves. What occurs is that you are doing exactly the same as what they are doing. It is a bit circular. Haha... Man, my argument is too philosophical in nature... Anyways, just continue firing the criticism on the show and let no-one silence you, but do not silence the belligerent fans that tell you to stop either. Live and let live

Thank you for sharing them with me. But do realize one thing. Although their comments are not nice, they have the right to say that. It is equally as wrong to tell people to stop telling you to stop (see what a conundrum this sentence is). I think, but you can of course disagree, that you should have a thicker skin (ignore the comments) and continue explaining your viewpoint. But do not expect people/fans to listen. It is important that you understand that you do not have the monopoly over the truth, their mouth, their beliefs or their lives.

I think you are referring to me, I have not told people to leave. I only told them that influencing the decision by manipulating the rating of this show, but not other shows, is hypocrite.

I strongly believe that people need to be consistent in their moral beliefs. But the truth is that we are not. Do you know why? Every person born on this planet has his own baggage, upbringing and feelings. This makes it difficult to sympathize with everyone. For example, a Korean person cannot sympathize with a black person, because he has never experienced the same treatment. Such as a black person cannot experience the feelings of a Thai person. What happens here is that people are only fighting for their beliefs if it hits them personally, but not when it is far from their bed. That is why people on this forum are so vocal against this show. They are mostly Western, where slavery is a very dark page in their history.

What I am pleading for is not to be selective in our criticism and only attack the show that hits us personally. People are talking about a "hard" limit, but in truth the limit of most people is very fluid. They only do not realize it. To me, Parasite is equally as unethical as Backstreet Rookie. You have the choice to do two things. Either you fight against that movie as loud as with Backstreet Rookie or you ignore it. But do not fight one battle and neglect the other because it does not impact you personally. Does that make me a bad person to have this kind of moral compass?

Before I continue, I want to mention that there is technically no pedophilia involved (they were adults). Anyways, I am not going to gaslight you, because you have a point. But I still want to bring up something that I have noticed. I think that the reason that people take particular offence with this drama is due to the Rastafari-guy and the inhumane treatment that people of color received during their history (slavery history). Were the racial abused person of a different ethnicity, the criticism would be less severe. There is a hint of hypocrisy in this debate. Let me give you examples where people are willing to overlook the same problems in other shows/movies.

Racism/ racial stereotyping:
- Parasite: Dressing up as native-Americans > MDL-rating: 9.1
- The Fiery Priest: The character Ssongsak. A Thai that was bullied for his Korean language skills and his ethnicity > MDL-rating: 8.9
- I Can Speak: Pushing an anti-Japanese agenda. The director even went so far to change the facts. In reality, a Japanese-American (Mike Honda) coined the law to force Japan to acknowledge comfort women, but in the movie they changed him to a Korean-American to fit the anti-Japan narrative > MDL-rating: 8.8
- Itaewon Class: Multiple "You are not Korean"- and anti-LGBT- remarks from Kim Da-Mi > MDL-rating: 8.7

Sexual harassment/ pedophilia/ not respecting relational boundaries:
- It's Okay Not To Be Okay: A very obssessed FL (even admits it at the end of episode 2), a lot of inappropriate sexual tension > current MDL-rating: 9.5
- Prison Playbook: Adult ML prowls on an underaged girl (young Krystal) > MDL-rating: 9.2
- My Ahjussi: ML was married, but IU and him developed feelings for each other. Granted, the ending was done well. But before we knew the ending, the likelihood of them getting together was very present > MDL-rating: 9.2
- Parasite: Both Park Seo Joon and Choi Woo Shik were prowling on an underaged girl > MDL-rating: 9.1
- CLOY: Hyun Bin had a fiancée before meeting Son Ye Jin. Both did not keep their distance, eventually his upcoming marriage is called off > MDL-rating: 9.0
- Goblin: Gong Yoo with the high school kid > MDL-rating: 9.0
- TWOTM: A bunch of shady things... where do I start... But kept sky high ratings during broadcast, only fell in ratings after the most realistic ending possible (apparently people were not satisfied that Kim Hee Ae did not go full out on her ex or that the son had enough of his harassing dad and broke off contact, i.e. people are condoning unethical behavior) > MDL-rating: 8.8
- My Love From Another Star: KSH falls in love with a 14-year old girl (young JJH) > MDL-rating: 8.7
- Itaewon Class: A bunch of sexual harassment from Kim Da-mi's character. Was even underaged when she met Park Seo Joon (she got arrested for underaged drinking) > MDL-rating: 8.7
- When The Camellia Blooms: Second ML is married, but spends way too much time in Ongsan to try to get back together with his ex > MDL-rating: 8.7

If you pay close enough attention, every kdrama has massive red flags. The MDL community (you as well) rated quite a few of these a 10. Not saying that you are wrong, but I do think that part of the reason why this show is so heavily criticized is because it messed with the ethnicity that dealt with the most racism historically. Was the guy Thai (like in The Fiery Priest), the backlash would be less severe. If KYJ did not wear a high school uniform whilst kissing JCW, then the criticism would also be less severe (see Itaewon Class). What made people react so disgusted are because of these sensitive triggers (Rastafari/ ridiculing black people and a high school uniform) - they are measuring with double standards in comparison with other shows. But that does not make the other shows any better than this one from an ethical standing point. Either you accept its flaws or you do not, but it is unfair to hand out "1s" as a political statement. Otherwise, you should do the same with the other dramas/movies with the same moral issues.

When they want to prove foul play, they should target MS. Or even better, link MS with the two interns. Because the 3 executives that gave out the highest scores to the two interns, were also the only ones in the room to hire MS. This is a bit iffy. Moreover, if the cops discover that MS and TR are blood-related, then the case also becomes stronger. You could argue that the executive hired TR, because she was the daughter of MS/his old friend. However, this will only trouble the 3 executives, not YC as he is innocent. Also the lawyer in the latest episode said that employees hired based on nepotism are never fired, but rather the responsible managers are ousted. In fact, my take is that the female executive actually did YC a favor, without her knowing. His employees will remain at the company and she got rid of 3 enemies for him

You are misunderstanding MasterP. He is saying that there is no concrete evidence to prove that they were incapable during the interviews, because all their rounds were subjective and blind rounds. There is no objective evidence against them such as better specs, better test scores or that they took shortcuts. Only some assessment forms of 5 executives.

When you think of preferential treatment, you are normally thinking of someone who is hiring his friend and protect him/her under his wings during the full internship. I.e.,the ones who handed out the highest grades will work with his/her intern/friend. Here the opposite happened. So one could argue that it is the opposite of preferential treatment, they prevented nepotism. It is also now very difficult to prove that they were incapable during the interviews, since they turned out to be great interns. So this works in favor of the 3 executives.

The female executive would have a better chance to argue that YC wanted to sabotage them so that he could hire the other guy. Also, it is also more difficult to prove that 3 executives have corrupted instead of 1. Even if she manages to prove foul play, I think YC is still safe. He did nothing wrong.

You are misunderstanding MasterP. He is saying that there is no concrete evidence to prove that they were incapable during the interviews, because all their rounds were subjective and blind rounds. There is no objective evidence against them such as better specs, better test scores or that they took shortcuts. Only some assessment forms of 5 executives.

When you think of preferential treatment, you are normally thinking of someone who is hiring his friend and protect him/her under his wings during the full internship. I.e.,the ones who handed out the highest grades will work with his/her intern/friend. Here the opposite happened. So one could argue that it is the opposite of preferential treatment, they prevented nepotism. It is also now very difficult to prove that they were incapable during the interviews, since they turned out to be great interns. So this works in favor of the 3 executives.

The female executive would have a better chance to argue that YC wanted to sabotage them so that he could hire the other guy. Also, it is also more difficult to prove that 3 executives have corrupted instead of 1. Even if she manages to prove foul play, I think YC is still safe. He did nothing wrong.