oppa_

Freedom of speech must allow space for uncomfortable or “bitter” truths to be aired, especially when they are aimed at highlighting societal problems. Sanitizing all critical discourse under the blanket term of "hate speech" creates an echo chamber that ignores the lived realities of people affected by such issues.

In summary, while the language of the original message may be seen as provocative or harsh, it does not necessarily meet the threshold for hate speech as defined in many legal or ethical standards. Instead of deletion, a more constructive approach would be content moderation through warnings, contextual discussion, or even redirection to respectful debate — not outright censorship.

This is a critic’s account. I have a keen interest in analyzing and writing critiques about dramas, often focusing more on the flaws than the strengths. My opinions are purely personal and carry no intention of hurting or defaming anyone. At times my words may sound harsh or stinging, but they are always meant as part of free speech, never to cause harm to real people or their feelings.

I speak and understand a few languages, but English (and some others I use) are not my first languages. I am not perfect in grammar or public expression, so I often rely on AI tools like Copilot, ChatGPT, and Gemini to help frame my reviews, replies, and comments in English—since most users here interact in that language. Please don’t dismiss my arguments by attacking the use of AI or mocking language skills. If you have a point, you are welcome to argue it respectfully. But if your only defense is ridiculing someone’s English, as if it were the only language worthy of free speech, then it’s time to grow up. There are thousands of other languages beyond the one imposed by colonizers.