ridiculous that those involved in production casted lee kyung young for a cameo in a drama where actors believe "social justice to be emblematic of it". such a slap in the face to the actors who truly believe in its cause, viewers who strongly support it, and it destroys everything the show is supposed to stand for. what a joke
do the really believe in social justice or just Money
So Kim Eui-sung says he feels “ashamed” about Lee Sun-kyun and the lack of social change — but somehow he feels no shame at all about working alongside Lee Kyung-young, a convicted rapist of minors?
That’s a pretty selective sense of morality.
He’s using Lee Sun-kyun’s death to talk about “social responsibility” while at the same time being completely comfortable sharing a production with someone who committed one of the worst crimes imaginable. If you can stand next to a proven child rapist on set and still lecture the public about justice, then your words mean nothing.
Talking about Taxi Driver punishing villains and symbolizing justice sounds nice in interviews, but real justice would mean refusing to normalize and rehabilitate people like Lee Kyung-young just because they’re powerful or useful in the industry.
So spare us the performative shame and the attention-seeking speeches about Lee Sun-kyun. You can’t claim the moral high ground while quietly protecting and benefiting from actual criminals. That’s not social justice — that’s hypocrisy dressed up as virtue.
while I agree that its sad he is no longer around, in the end it was his choice to end his life, that is truth
People here keep calling Lee Sun-kyun’s affair a “private matter,” but they’re conveniently ignoring a very basic fact: it wasn’t just an affair — it was with an escort, and prostitution is illegal in South Korea. You don’t get to wave that away as “just his private life” when it’s literally a criminal offense under Korean law.
So how exactly are people so confidently declaring him “innocent”? Innocent of what? Being framed for drugs? Sure. But innocent in every sense? No — the case involved an illegal transaction, and pretending otherwise just because he was famous or sympathetic is rewriting reality.
That doesn’t mean he deserved to be publicly destroyed, harassed, or driven to death by police and media. Those things were absolutely wrong. But turning prostitution into a harmless “private affair” just to protect a celebrity is another form of hypocrisy.
If people want to talk about justice and the law, then be consistent. You can condemn the system’s abuse without pretending no laws were broken just because you like the person involved.
So Kim Eui-sung says he feels “ashamed” about Lee Sun-kyun and the lack of social change — but somehow he feels no shame at all about working alongside Lee Kyung-young, a convicted rapist of minors?
That’s a pretty selective sense of morality.
He’s using Lee Sun-kyun’s death to talk about “social responsibility” while at the same time being completely comfortable sharing a production with someone who committed one of the worst crimes imaginable. If you can stand next to a proven child rapist on set and still lecture the public about justice, then your words mean nothing.
Talking about Taxi Driver punishing villains and symbolizing justice sounds nice in interviews, but real justice would mean refusing to normalize and rehabilitate people like Lee Kyung-young just because they’re powerful or useful in the industry.
So spare us the performative shame and the attention-seeking speeches about Lee Sun-kyun. You can’t claim the moral high ground while quietly protecting and benefiting from actual criminals. That’s not social justice — that’s hypocrisy dressed up as virtue.
I see so many people here talking about “empathy” and how he didn’t deserve that treatment — and yet in the same breath they say “it was his own choice to commit suicide.” Pick one. Either you believe in empathy or you reduce everything to “personal choice” and absolve society, the media, and law enforcement of any responsibility.
What really annoys me is how this so-called empathy only appears when the victim is rich or famous. Poor and unknown people are harassed, framed, driven into despair by police and the system all the time — they die too — but nobody writes essays for them, nobody trends hashtags, nobody cries about their mental health. That hypocrisy is disgusting.
And let’s not pretend the industry actually cares about justice. The same production that wants to talk about “social justice” had the nerve to cast Lee Kyung-young — a convicted rapist of minors — for a cameo. That alone destroys any moral credibility the show claims to have. It’s a slap in the face to the actors who believe in the message and to viewers who support it.
So yes, people can mourn Lee. But don’t turn this into some fake moral crusade while protecting real predators and ignoring the countless non-famous victims crushed by the same system. That’s not empathy — that’s selective outrage.
Her obsession and where her money goes is explained in the storyline.I think what you consider unrealistic and…
I have nothing against harmless fangirling that doesn’t hurt anyone. Supporting an idol with your own money and time is a personal choice. My issue is with the degree of denial, especially considering Sena is portrayed as a highly mature, accomplished adult—a senior lawyer and partner at a firm, not a naive intern. Someone at that level should be capable of separating an idol image from a real human being. Idols aren’t imaginary or morally perfect beings. They’re real people with flaws—capable of lying, committing crimes, dating, drinking, having sex, or making bad choices. Being her favorite idol doesn’t automatically grant him innocence or immunity from scrutiny. That’s why it feels inconsistent that she’s shocked by things like him having a girlfriend or drinking with friends. Idols aren’t holy figures. They eat, poop, cry, drink, date, and live messy human lives like everyone else. Enjoying fandom is fine—but blind idealization, especially from a supposedly rational adult professional, is where it becomes hard to accept.
I appreciate the effort you put into your review — but the problem isn’t that people “lack critical thinking.” It’s that they simply don’t agree with your interpretation, and that should be okay.
You argue a lot about autonomy, tolerance, and human rights — but then treat anyone who dislikes the show’s themes as ignorant, reactionary, or morally flawed. That’s not defending justice. That’s deciding your worldview is the only legitimate one.
Freedom of speech doesn’t only protect opinions you approve of. It also protects discomfort, disagreement, and criticism — as long as it isn’t targeted hate or calls for harm. Many people aren’t saying “these people shouldn’t exist.” They’re saying: “I don’t like how these topics are handled in this drama.” That’s valid.
Not everyone wants politics, activism, or heavy moral messaging in entertainment. Not everyone reads the same symbolism the same way. And disliking a show doesn’t automatically mean they want to control anyone’s life.
You accuse others of “pushing an agenda,” but your review also pushes one — just in the opposite direction. That’s fine. We all have beliefs. But dismissing every criticism as bigotry or bad faith turns discussion into a moral lecture instead of conversation.
You like the show. Others don’t. Both can be true.
Critique isn’t oppression, and disagreement isn’t hate.
That’s a pretty selective sense of morality.
He’s using Lee Sun-kyun’s death to talk about “social responsibility” while at the same time being completely comfortable sharing a production with someone who committed one of the worst crimes imaginable. If you can stand next to a proven child rapist on set and still lecture the public about justice, then your words mean nothing.
Talking about Taxi Driver punishing villains and symbolizing justice sounds nice in interviews, but real justice would mean refusing to normalize and rehabilitate people like Lee Kyung-young just because they’re powerful or useful in the industry.
So spare us the performative shame and the attention-seeking speeches about Lee Sun-kyun. You can’t claim the moral high ground while quietly protecting and benefiting from actual criminals. That’s not social justice — that’s hypocrisy dressed up as virtue.
So how exactly are people so confidently declaring him “innocent”? Innocent of what? Being framed for drugs? Sure. But innocent in every sense? No — the case involved an illegal transaction, and pretending otherwise just because he was famous or sympathetic is rewriting reality.
That doesn’t mean he deserved to be publicly destroyed, harassed, or driven to death by police and media. Those things were absolutely wrong. But turning prostitution into a harmless “private affair” just to protect a celebrity is another form of hypocrisy.
If people want to talk about justice and the law, then be consistent. You can condemn the system’s abuse without pretending no laws were broken just because you like the person involved.
That’s a pretty selective sense of morality.
He’s using Lee Sun-kyun’s death to talk about “social responsibility” while at the same time being completely comfortable sharing a production with someone who committed one of the worst crimes imaginable. If you can stand next to a proven child rapist on set and still lecture the public about justice, then your words mean nothing.
Talking about Taxi Driver punishing villains and symbolizing justice sounds nice in interviews, but real justice would mean refusing to normalize and rehabilitate people like Lee Kyung-young just because they’re powerful or useful in the industry.
So spare us the performative shame and the attention-seeking speeches about Lee Sun-kyun. You can’t claim the moral high ground while quietly protecting and benefiting from actual criminals. That’s not social justice — that’s hypocrisy dressed up as virtue.
What really annoys me is how this so-called empathy only appears when the victim is rich or famous. Poor and unknown people are harassed, framed, driven into despair by police and the system all the time — they die too — but nobody writes essays for them, nobody trends hashtags, nobody cries about their mental health. That hypocrisy is disgusting.
And let’s not pretend the industry actually cares about justice. The same production that wants to talk about “social justice” had the nerve to cast Lee Kyung-young — a convicted rapist of minors — for a cameo. That alone destroys any moral credibility the show claims to have. It’s a slap in the face to the actors who believe in the message and to viewers who support it.
So yes, people can mourn Lee. But don’t turn this into some fake moral crusade while protecting real predators and ignoring the countless non-famous victims crushed by the same system. That’s not empathy — that’s selective outrage.
From his pov of view his father was greatest husband.
My issue is with the degree of denial, especially considering Sena is portrayed as a highly mature, accomplished adult—a senior lawyer and partner at a firm, not a naive intern. Someone at that level should be capable of separating an idol image from a real human being.
Idols aren’t imaginary or morally perfect beings. They’re real people with flaws—capable of lying, committing crimes, dating, drinking, having sex, or making bad choices. Being her favorite idol doesn’t automatically grant him innocence or immunity from scrutiny.
That’s why it feels inconsistent that she’s shocked by things like him having a girlfriend or drinking with friends. Idols aren’t holy figures. They eat, poop, cry, drink, date, and live messy human lives like everyone else.
Enjoying fandom is fine—but blind idealization, especially from a supposedly rational adult professional, is where it becomes hard to accept.
You argue a lot about autonomy, tolerance, and human rights — but then treat anyone who dislikes the show’s themes as ignorant, reactionary, or morally flawed. That’s not defending justice. That’s deciding your worldview is the only legitimate one.
Freedom of speech doesn’t only protect opinions you approve of. It also protects discomfort, disagreement, and criticism — as long as it isn’t targeted hate or calls for harm. Many people aren’t saying “these people shouldn’t exist.” They’re saying: “I don’t like how these topics are handled in this drama.” That’s valid.
Not everyone wants politics, activism, or heavy moral messaging in entertainment. Not everyone reads the same symbolism the same way. And disliking a show doesn’t automatically mean they want to control anyone’s life.
You accuse others of “pushing an agenda,” but your review also pushes one — just in the opposite direction. That’s fine. We all have beliefs. But dismissing every criticism as bigotry or bad faith turns discussion into a moral lecture instead of conversation.
You like the show. Others don’t. Both can be true.
Critique isn’t oppression, and disagreement isn’t hate.
I was expecting them to have some hardcore Intercourse middle of battlefield