eighthsense

wrote a review and now im arguing with them lol.

A HOSPITAL isn’t a CHURCH. Once religious doctrine dictates medical care, it stops being faith and becomes coercive governance. You cannot use any religious belief to deny someone legally and medically AVAILABLE care. Imagine a hospital adopting a doctrine that says: “No patient with red hair may receive life saving surgery because red haired people are cursed.” Even if some staff personally believe this is divinely mandated, the hospital cannot legally or morally refuse care based on that belief. Denying treatment because of religion like refusing an abortion citing Catholicism, is the same kind of coercion: it imposes ideology over patient rights and safety. Faith doesn’t give a hospital the right to harm or control people.

Calling this “anti-Catholicism” is willfully stupid. The hospital isn’t the villain for being Catholic, it’s the villain for forcing its religious doctrine onto a pregnant teen’s body. Not wanting an abortion for yourself is a belief. Using institutional power to deny medical autonomy is coercion. That’s not “protecting life,” that’s controlling women and then patting yourself on the back for it. If your morality requires stripping someone else of consent, it doesn’t become righteous just because you slap religion on it. Stop confusing faith with authority and discomfort with persecution.

Calling it “not helping to kill a child” is pure emotional manipulation. A fetus is not a child, and pretending otherwise is how you justify stripping a woman of bodily autonomy. No one is obligated to sacrifice their body, health, or future for your religious definition of life. A hospital denying medical care based on doctrine isn’t “morally pure,” it’s abusing institutional power.

You deliberately redefine a fetus as a child to smuggle moral guilt into the argument. If your logic depends on changing medical and legal definitions, it’s already broken.

Infinite concern for a fetus, zero concern for the living person carrying it. Your framing completely erases the pregnant person. The woman/teen becomes an incubator with no agency, health risks, consent, or future….yet you claim the moral high ground.

You call it “saving a child” while outsourcing all consequences: medical trauma, disability care, lifelong responsibility to someone else. This is not ethics, it’s abdication of responsibility.

I’m not here to debate whether abortion is good or bad. I’m saying coercion is bad. If you’re ignoring every point I made just to fit your narrative, that’s on you. I’m not wasting my time repeating the same arguments over and over for someone unwilling to actually think about them.

Saying “people are scared of things that are different from them” may describe reality, but it doesn’t justify it. Fear isn’t a moral shield. Historically, every denial of rights has been defended with discomfort: interracial marriage, women working, disability access, etc. Explaining fear is not the same as excusing it, and criticism exists precisely to challenge irrational fear, not validate it.

“As long as they don’t want to kill anyone, it’s fine.”
That’s an extremely weak ethical standard. Harm doesn’t start at murder. Stigmatization, erasure, shaming, and supporting coercive systems (like forced pregnancy) all cause real harm long before violence enters the picture.

You argue the message should be delivered “without insulting people,” but criticism of beliefs ≠ insult to people. If a devout Catholic character is portrayed as a villain because he enforces beliefs that harm others, that’s not an attack on Catholics, it’s a critique of actions and power, not identity. Wanting every belief treated gently, regardless of impact, prioritizes comfort over accountability.

Claiming that addressing social issues “too aggressively” causes the rise of the right places responsibility on marginalized advocacy instead of on reactionary politics. That logic says: “Tone it down, or it’s your fault people become bigoted.” That’s backwards. The existence of pushback doesn’t mean the critique was wrong, it means it touched a nerve.

You say abortion and homosexuality aren’t ideological, yet you object to their portrayal because it challenges certain moral frameworks. That contradiction matters. If something isn’t ideological, then depicting it isn’t “forcing ideas.” The discomfort clearly comes from whose values are being centered, not from aggression.

Saying “I’m part of a minority” doesn’t automatically make the reasoning sound. Minorities can still hold views that reinforce harm toward other groups. Lived experience matters, but it doesn’t exempt an argument from critique, especially when it downplays systemic coercion or bodily autonomy.

Your argument prioritizes comfort over consequences, fear over reason, and tone over substance. That’s why it falls apart. I’m not attacking people for being uncomfortable, I’m questioning why discomfort is treated as more important than other people’s rights and realities.

Criticizing religious institutions or religiously motivated policies is not the same as calling all religious people evil. Most people aren’t saying “religious people are bad,” they’re saying religion should not be used to justify controlling others’ bodies or denying rights. That distinction matters, and your argument ignores it entirely

Pointing to charitable work by parts of the Catholic Church is irrelevant to the criticism being made. An institution can do good and still uphold doctrines that harm women, queer people, or others. Charity does not negate coercion. Helping some minorities does not excuse policies that strip autonomy from others. That’s not exclusionary, it’s accountability

Being criticized as a belief system ≠ being excluded from society. Religious people are not denied housing, healthcare, legal protection, or bodily autonomy because of online criticism. Queer people and women historically have been. Treating these two as morally equivalent erases real power imbalances.

Saying “everyone is exclusionary sometimes” is a way to avoid distinguishing between punching up and punching down. Criticizing an institution with centuries of power is not the same as marginalizing people who already lack protection. Context matters. Power matters. Without that, “exclusionary” becomes a meaningless word. Citing one compassionate cardinal doesn’t address the broader issue: official doctrine, political lobbying, and institutional influence over laws affecting millions.

Individual kindness doesn’t absolve systemic consequences. That’s like saying a company can’t be criticized for pollution because some employees recycle. You’re reframing justified criticism as unfair persecution to center the feelings of a dominant group, while sidestepping the actual harm being discussed. That’s not nuance, it’s deflection.

Also an opinion for example is whether you like mint chocolate ice cream or not. Whether people deserve basic rights, bodily autonomy, and dignity isn’t a matter of taste. Hiding dehumanizing views behind “freedom of speech” doesn’t make them neutral or harmless, it just avoids accountability. You’re free to speak, and others are free to call out speech that reduces real people to something debatable.

Since you were curious about why I seemed “upset”: I’m reacting to arguments that frame human rights, bodily autonomy, and representation as mere ideology or propaganda. Those aren’t abstract themes for a lot of people, they affect real lives so it’s not surprising that discussions around them carry emotion.

Also, whether you call me dumb or ignorant doesn’t really change my point. Being a humanist isn’t just about being polite or avoiding insults, it’s about valuing the dignity, rights, and autonomy of all people, especially those who are marginalized. True humanism means recognizing that discomfort or disagreement doesn’t make a person’s experiences or rights any less valid. Using “humanist” to justify prioritizing comfort over justice is a misunderstanding of the term. Empathy, critical thinking, and ethical reasoning are core to humanism, not selectively shielding some groups from critique while ignoring systemic harm.

Freedom of speech is a human right.
It also doesn’t mean freedom from critique. You’re allowed to express discomfort or disagreement, and I’m equally allowed to point out when that discomfort is rooted in flawed reasoning or selectively applied principles. Criticism isn’t censorship. Calling something “wrong” because it makes you uncomfortable, especially when it involves other people’s bodies or existence, isn’t a neutral opinion, it has real social implications. Saying “I’m not comfortable seeing this in media” about abortion or queer people isn’t the same as disliking a plot twist; it’s about whose lives are deemed acceptable to depict.

Also, there’s a false equivalence in your argument. I’m not trying to ban anyone’s speech or invalidate it legally; I’m challenging the logic behind it. That’s not contradictory to opposing religious coercion. There’s a clear difference between expressing a belief for yourself and supporting systems that impose that belief on others especially when it results in controlling women’s bodies. One is personal conscience; the other is structural harm.
As for propaganda: yes, everything carries values. The difference is direction. Propaganda enforces power downward; human rights storytelling challenges power structures. Showing a teen forced to give birth or queer people needing legal protection isn’t “forcing ideology,” it’s depicting realities that already exist. Calling that propaganda while defending moral discomfort is selective neutrality.

Finally, clarifying that “these people” means those who get abortions doesn’t fix the issue, it reinforces it. Reducing abortion to “something normal people wouldn’t care about” erases the fact that real women’s lives, health, and autonomy are involved. You can disagree with abortion personally, but once that belief turns into judgment over whether those stories deserve to be told, it stops being neutral opinion and starts being exclusionary.
You don’t have to like the drama. But framing empathy, bodily autonomy, and legal protection as merely “ideology” while treating discomfort as a moral high ground is exactly the flawed logic I was criticizing in the first place.

ikr they even wrote reviews

You’re just embarrassing yourself.
“Agenda” and it’s basic human rights.
“Woke” and it’s just representation.

“Push agendas” = people you’re not used to seeing existing on screen. Straight romance, marriages, pregnancies, affairs? Somehow never an “agenda.”
The moment a queer person shows up, it’s suddenly “woke propaganda.” Be fr.

TV has always had politics, values, and perspectives….. you only notice it now because it’s not centered on you. Nothing is being “pushed,” you’re just being exposed to a reality that isn’t tailored to your comfort.

If your enjoyment of a show collapses because different people exist in it, that’s not TV’s problem. That’s yours.

“I don’t hate homosexuals BUT—”
Every time a sentence starts like that, it’s already lying. You clearly don’t hate people, you just hate seeing them exist for more than 5 minutes on your screen.

Straight people are in every single show, every genre, every country, kissing, marrying, having sex, cheating, divorcing and somehow that’s “normal,” not “promotion.” But one LGBTQ+ character shows up and suddenly Netflix is “ruining culture”? Be serious. I have never read a more diabolical statement than this.

No one took anything away from you. You weren’t harmed. Your life didn’t change. You just had to acknowledge that people different from you exist. If that bothers you this much, the call is coming from inside the house.

Also, your religion is not universal law. You’re free to follow Christ. You are not free to demand the entire world, every doctor, every woman, every TV show follow your beliefs. That’s not faith, that’s entitlement. And the abortion rant? Doctors aren’t villains for prioritizing living people over religious guilt trips. Not everyone believes sex is a crime that deserves forced suffering as punishment. Again: your belief ≠ everyone’s obligation.

You say “it’s my right”……cool. It’s also everyone else’s right to exist, be represented, and tell stories without asking your permission.

If seeing a rally or a queer character for 5 minutes makes you spiral this hard, maybe ask yourself why representation feels like an attack to you. Because it says way more about you than it ever will about them.

Lost too many brain cells reading these comments. Hating on shows addressing BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS in the big 2025 is a different kind of clownery.

you’re so real for that. I was like please switch off that phone and continue.

Im probably the only one dying on this hill of DEWGUNNNNNNN endgame because they look so good together 😭 Their chemistry is so Djdjfiffididfkhkgkfkdkgnkk. Dew is so damn fine!!!!! + the scene near the end where he was yearning…… that changed me lol

Execute me for saying this but I want DewGun to be the endgame. They have me on a chokehold.

“In life, you come across complete losers from time to time.
Those who cannot stand someone else giving love… to the person who they do not love.”

For someone who is so decisive and responsible, he sure created a scene in public which would end being in front headlines. He decided to pull that bs on THE WEDDING DAY, like do you not care about your cOmpANys ImAgE?

First 17 mins into the ep, Im extremely distracted from how HOT pheem is. The way he talks and looks at jira….MY GOD I WONT SURVIVE THIS. Also im always mesmerised by how good Gun’s acting is.

Im sorry but ji changwook is so unbelievably fine.

If that wasn’t meant to be condescending, then I think we’re simply reading the tone very differently.
You told me there’s “no point arguing,” implied people reacting strongly must have “the emotional maturity of a teenager,” then wrapped it all up with a mental health reminder and that combination is condescending, whether intentional or not.
But if you’re baffled and have nothing else to add, that’s fair.
My original point still stands: the issue isn’t the story, it’s the way people are defending and sexualising abusive behaviour while dismissing anyone who finds it disturbing. That’s the conversation I was having.
If you’re not engaging with that, then we’re just talking past each other.

I appreciate the long explanation, but I think you’re addressing a conversation I’m not actually having.
“There are always unhinged comments, just ignore them.”
Sure except the point isn’t that they exist. It’s that people are actively defending and sexualising abusive behaviour and then attacking anyone who says, “Hey, this is messed up.”
That’s not simply “unhinged comments.” That’s a pattern.

“As long as your morals are fine in real life, fiction can turn to ashes.”
Absolutely, but again, no one here is policing fiction. I’m pointing out how people talk about the fiction. Saying abuse is “hot” and shaming people who are uncomfortable with it isn’t the harmless escapism you’re painting it as.

Trigger warnings don’t excuse fandom behaviour.
A trigger warning is there so viewers can prepare themselves.
It doesn’t magically turn violent scenes into something acceptable to romanticise, nor does it protect the community from criticism when they do so.

“We were warned we won’t like the ML.”
Right and I don’t. That’s fine.
What isn’t fine is people treating his behaviour like a kink and then acting superior to anyone who isn’t into it.

“This is just fiction; real-life DV is tragic.”
Exactly, which is why it’s bizarre to watch people defend the exact behaviour they admit is abuse. The contradiction is the issue.

The condescending mental health PSA.
I promise I don’t need a wellness check because I pointed out a disturbing trend in the comment section. I’m perfectly capable of consuming dark fiction without losing my moral compass — which is precisely why I can call out the weird romanticisation happening here.

I’m not confused about the plot. I’m not confusing fiction with reality.
I’m simply calling out the fandom discourse and that part does matter.
If people are allowed to express bizarre takes openly, I’m equally allowed to call those takes out. Ignoring things is an option for all of us, not only the people who romanticise the behaviour.
My issue is very specific: not the show, not fiction, but the reaction people are having to it.
And if that reaction is fair game to defend, then it’s also fair game to criticise.
That’s all I was doing.
i hope this helps!☺️

If your logic is that “any fictional non-con is morally neutral because some people enjoy that kink,” then you’re essentially saying no fictional act can ever be questioned, no matter how harmful or exploitative it is. But that collapses immediately, because society clearly recognizes that some depictions, especially involving people who cannot consent carry moral weight even in fiction. R in any universe is not hot, not in fantasy, not in storytelling, and certainly not when it’s framed as romance. And bringing up non-con or dub-con kink enjoyers is completely irrelevant here, because those kinks rely on consensual fantasy spaces with boundaries, not on applauding an untagged assault scene in a mainstream show. The issue isn’t that people have dark fantasies; the issue is pretending that all fantasies are automatically beyond moral scrutiny. That argument doesn’t protect kink culture, it erases the ethical boundaries that exist for a reason.

*Trigger warning* sensitive topics mentioned below;
If someone enjoys and is excited over murder scenes, women being violated scenes, dv scenes, animals being killed scenes, cp scenes, it doesn’t reflect their morality at all? The og comment was implying people finding literal assault, hot. Does fiction blur these lines to consider this doesn’t reflect morality?

Nobody is attacking people who explore non-con or dub-con as private kinks. A non-con or dub-con kink is something explored in a controlled, consensual environment, either through tagged fiction, roleplay, or explicit fantasy spaces. Everyone involved is aware, consenting, and choosing it. Calling a random depiction of assault “hot” in a general audience show is none of those things. A non-con kink means you like the fantasy, not actual harm. It does not mean seeing an unconscious person being violated and saying “this is romantic and cute.” That’s not kink, that’s normalization.

People aren’t saying viewers “need help” for having dark tastes. They’re reacting to others praising molestation like it’s sexy. That’s a very different thing. Fiction doesn’t make you immoral, but defending the romanticization of assault while mocking those who are uncomfortable does raise ethical questions.

BL already has a long history of smoothing over coercion and calling it love. So when a scene of assault plays and the comments romanticize it, that’s not harmless fantasy, it’s part of a much larger trend where violence against queer men gets rewritten as passion. Pointing out that pattern isn’t being “morally uptight.” It’s being socially aware. Private kink ≠ moral issue. Publicly romanticizing assault in a mainstream story = moral issue. If someone says “molestation is hot,” that’s not just a kink,
it’s a sign that they’re unbothered by violence being inserted into romance narratives.
That lack of discomfort is morally relevant. Survivors, queer men, and viewers sensitive to assault see those comments and feel dismissed, unsafe, or retraumatized. Morality includes how your reactions affect real people.

It’s not about demonizing kink. It’s about recognizing the difference between consensual fantasy and media that normalizes harm. And calling that out isn’t a personal attack.