YOU ARE A SUICIDE-ENABLER. There is NOTHING to these accusations, as the article clearly states, yet here you…
This conversation really isn't about me, so I'll just ignore the personal remarks you keep throwing. I mentioned your ad hominem argument in order to make clear your fallacious argument, and not because I might feel offended due to some random person on a forum. Also I'm not really sure why you feel the urge to accuse me of being a "toxic Korean fan", when I'm simply just commenting on the situation. Am I calling her to be blacklisted from the industry? No. Am I saying that she should go to jail? No. In the same manner of you accusing me of being a "toxic fan", I could also accuse you of being an obsessive superfan of this actress. However that doesn't really make sense, because neither my background nor yours contributes anything to this conversation. If you cannot argue in good faith, don't bother responding to this comment.
> while attacking an actress over 20-year-old high school bullying accusations, made by an anonymous (of course) person, which are impossible to prove one way or the other. And if they're true, so what? 20 years!
As I have repeated, it doesn't matter whether the accusations are true or not. Furthermore, the moral argument about whether she should be punished or not for being a perpetrator of school violence was never in this conversation.
> Where are your details as to the ALLEGED incident that led to her transfer? What do we know about that? Maybe SHE was the one bullied. Who fucking cares? 20 years!
"Forced transfer is a system that forces the offending student to transfer to another school so that continuous acts of violence can be put an end to, and falls under item 8. This is the highest level of punishment except for No. 9 expulsion."
There is also additional context given that you can read to understand the official process behind dealing with school violence if you wish.
YOU ARE A SUICIDE-ENABLER. There is NOTHING to these accusations, as the article clearly states, yet here you…
> You are suggesting that turning 20-year-old bullying accusations (btw, why did this guy stand still and let a girl slap him for 90 minutes?) into a celebrity witch-hunt now will prevent bullying. You are of limited intellectual capacity.
No, I explicitly said that the bullying accusations could be completely false, but that does not change the end result whatsoever. As I originally said, her agency has already stated that she did transfer schools due to involvement in school violence. Thus, regardless of the truth of the new accusations, she still remains a perpetrator of bullying. Now whether it is morally correct to blacklist a celebrity from the industry based on something they did 20 years ago is debatable, but that is another conversation.
Also, if you cannot argue in good faith and resort to making ad hominem comments, please refrain from replying. Whether I am South Korean or not (for that matter, I was born and brought up in the US) is irrelevant to my argument. The points I have made still hold, and you have not refuted them in any way.
YOU ARE A SUICIDE-ENABLER. There is NOTHING to these accusations, as the article clearly states, yet here you…
> There is NOTHING to these accusations How are you to judge the validity of the accusations? No one here has any insight into the situation beyond what has been published. Just like you accuse @mngpanda of being a "suicide-enabler", I could also accuse you of enabling the acceptance of bullying. Carelessly dismissing the either side without objectively considering it (like many people in this thread seem to be doing, most likely due to personal bias) is simply fallacious.
Asides from that, her agency has already conceded that she was forced to transfer due to her involvement in school violence. Even if this accusation is potentially baseless, it is clear that she has been involved in bullying to such a degree that she was forced to transfer. Thus, the end result is the same, regardless of the validity of this new accusation.
Don't really care about the romance aspect, so I almost dropped the show when the 2nd female lead unironically advocated for government regulation over search results. And then when it was pointed out that's clearly a guise for government censorship, she used Singapore as an example? Yes, the country where you can receive defamation charges for openly criticizing the government. Yes, the country where essentially all media channels are state owned and regulated. What a great example!
Even further, she attempted to present the "nothing to hide" argument, that advocates of government surveillance frequently state. As Snowden said: "Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say". What a blatantly disingenuous argument.
I guess I'm in the minority of people who expect K-Dramas to be of intellectual quality beyond the romance, as I haven't heard anyone comment on this. Just found it wild.
I mean the other commenter has a fair point; how are you going to assume the decision was completely on the actress rather than the production crew? Unless you have some hidden insight into the situation, it's just speculation.
Also "this isn't debate club" is so ironic considering your response lol.
This could be bad (Park Min Young's dramas are usually more miss than hit for me) but it also sounds pretty fun.…
Agreed, none of Park Min Young's dramas have been particularly notable. When the Weather is Fine was decent, but moreso due to the iyashikei-style to the show rather than her acting. Hopefully this one will be better.
As a side note, When the Weather is Fine could've been pulled off so much better. My excitement about the show was a downwards opening parabolic curve lol.
Thank God the "more miss than hit" is for you not everyone else. Have a great holiday
Yes it's their opinion, hence why they said "for me". Simply sharing an opinion doesn't imply that everyone else needs to agree with it, so I'm not sure why you're pressed.
> while attacking an actress over 20-year-old high school bullying accusations, made by an anonymous (of course) person, which are impossible to prove one way or the other. And if they're true, so what? 20 years!
As I have repeated, it doesn't matter whether the accusations are true or not. Furthermore, the moral argument about whether she should be punished or not for being a perpetrator of school violence was never in this conversation.
> Where are your details as to the ALLEGED incident that led to her transfer? What do we know about that? Maybe SHE was the one bullied. Who fucking cares? 20 years!
Here are the details (sourced from the agency itself: https://n.news.naver.com/entertain/now/article/468/0001046386)
"Forced transfer is a system that forces the offending student to transfer to another school so that continuous acts of violence can be put an end to, and falls under item 8. This is the highest level of punishment except for No. 9 expulsion."
There is also additional context given that you can read to understand the official process behind dealing with school violence if you wish.
No, I explicitly said that the bullying accusations could be completely false, but that does not change the end result whatsoever. As I originally said, her agency has already stated that she did transfer schools due to involvement in school violence. Thus, regardless of the truth of the new accusations, she still remains a perpetrator of bullying. Now whether it is morally correct to blacklist a celebrity from the industry based on something they did 20 years ago is debatable, but that is another conversation.
Also, if you cannot argue in good faith and resort to making ad hominem comments, please refrain from replying. Whether I am South Korean or not (for that matter, I was born and brought up in the US) is irrelevant to my argument. The points I have made still hold, and you have not refuted them in any way.
How are you to judge the validity of the accusations? No one here has any insight into the situation beyond what has been published. Just like you accuse @mngpanda of being a "suicide-enabler", I could also accuse you of enabling the acceptance of bullying. Carelessly dismissing the either side without objectively considering it (like many people in this thread seem to be doing, most likely due to personal bias) is simply fallacious.
Asides from that, her agency has already conceded that she was forced to transfer due to her involvement in school violence. Even if this accusation is potentially baseless, it is clear that she has been involved in bullying to such a degree that she was forced to transfer. Thus, the end result is the same, regardless of the validity of this new accusation.
Even further, she attempted to present the "nothing to hide" argument, that advocates of government surveillance frequently state. As Snowden said: "Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say". What a blatantly disingenuous argument.
I guess I'm in the minority of people who expect K-Dramas to be of intellectual quality beyond the romance, as I haven't heard anyone comment on this. Just found it wild.
Also "this isn't debate club" is so ironic considering your response lol.
As a side note, When the Weather is Fine could've been pulled off so much better. My excitement about the show was a downwards opening parabolic curve lol.