bideshi

The episode calendar suggests that there won't be any episodes aired this week. True?

Going against popular opinion, I've dropped this after episode 3. The ML's inability to simply say "I lke you," and the multiple contrived interruptions when he's about to say it just did't ring true and annoyed me. It made me care for the ML and the show much less.

Re: the doghouse. The writers have absolutely no shame in putting in the most ridiculous object/plot device ever in K-drama--just so that she could overhear a key conversation. I know the show jumped the shark long ago, but now I'm proposing "the show's in the doghouse" as a replacement for "the show jumped the shark."

I guess that's something that doesn't fall under "anything is possible." That's my mistake. I guess it wasn't Siri, but it was something to do speech recognition. I did a quick search and I found this: in November 2008, "Google launches the Voice Search app for the iPhone, bringing speech recognition technology to mobile devices." I apologize for being wrong about the details.

I don't think you're reading my replies carefully. My most recent reply was precisely to explain why I don't think that in South Korea in 2007 it's likely that high school students wouldn't have been aware of a laptop or a smartphone, even in a rural area. I'm not claiming that 100% of Korean kids would have definitely known about such things. Of course it's possible that any particular kid might not have known about such things--in the sense that you can always say anything's possible. (For example, if there was drama about Korean high school kids in 2023 and none of them had ever heard of BTS or Blackpink, would you believe that by saying, "well, anything's possible"?) I'm simply saying that it's possible but not very likely, especially since that we see the girl and the boy interacting fluently with various technology, and that such an amazed reaction to smartphones and laptops would be more believable had they been North Korean kids. I dont think I'm making a particularly controversial argument here, and to reply with "Anything is possible" won't persuade me.

That's part of my point about it being South Korea, not North Korea. Even in 2006, Korea was far more advanced in technology than most of the world. I started using a laptop in 1997 (and I was late compared to many in the States), so by 2006, I imagine that laptop use was quite widespread especially in a country like Korea. And I saw someone talking to Siri on an iPhone around 2003/4 in Bangladesh! If anyone is going to be the first to use new technology like laptops/smartphones, it'd be Korean youth.

And I think you're way overestimating the difference between Seoul and rural areas when it comes to technology. Korea is such a small country with such deep penetration of media that there wouldn't be much that Seoul had that wouldn't quickly be found/known in rural areas. And just because they lived in a rual area/island doesn't mean that they are mostly poor or somehow deprived of most of the things that their Seoul cousins might have had. I might have been wrong about the girl having a PC (though wasn't she looking at the Sugar website on a computer that wasn't at Ki Ho's house?), but she had other things like a guitar and something to play her CDs on. Sure, it's possible that she might have been amazed by the new technology she sees after 15 years--who knows what living alone for 15 years will do to a teenager's psyche--but to explain it as "She was too poor and lived too remotely to have been aware of laptops and smartphones" doesn't seem at all likely to me.

And just out of curiosity, where do you live that even today a lot of kids and adults still don't know what a smartphone is? I ask because I live in Bangladesh--which by any global measurement would be considered poor--but I doubt there are many people (and probably no kids) who don't know what a smartphone is.

Of course there are poor people in South Korea. And yes, I did watch episode one where the girl (despite not being rich) had a mobile phone, CDs, a PC and internet access, and where the boy (despite not being rich) had a phone, a camcorder, a PC, video editing software, internet access, and a bicycle. If they had those things and knew enough about technology to use those things, then it stretches credibility to think that in a Korean high school where presumably there were wealthier kids our protagonists would not have known about laptops and other more advanced technology--or would have at least seen them being advertised on TV (which I assume they would have access to). Did we watch the same episode? Do we have the same kind of understanding of Korean society/culture?

Yes, but it's South Korea we're talking about, not North Korea.

What could the third marriage be referring to? One person's third marriage (e.g. Dajung's mom's) or something else?

Other than correctly pointing out the the Holocaust was different than the African slave trade, your post was irrelevant verbal diarrhea that didn't prove your claim that the trans-Atlantic slave trade being the worst case of slavery in the history of mankind legitimizes your idea that only white people can be racist. If you really knew your stuff, you should be able to give at least a few reasons why the American version of slavery was the worst ever--instead of just writing down the name of a (probably) leftist thinktank focused on American history (as opposed to world history). And you should be able to at least attempt to explain why the sins of white people are somehow worse than the sins of Africans or Asians who practiced slavery and thus make them uniquely guilty of racism. (Let's not forget the cases of blacks enslaving whites throughout history.)

But the weakness of your assertion goes beyond just not being able to support the facts about transatlantic slavery. Even if the transatlantic slavery were the worst case of slavery in human history, that does not mean that Blacks in 21st-century America cannot be racist simply because of the pigment of their skin. Even if we account for the generational pain caused by slavery in previous centuries, that does not absolve Blacks from the sin of racism, that does not excuse the corruption and violence in the BLM organization and movement, and that does not legitimize the infantalization of Blacks by leftists that keeps them in the cycle of poverty, broken families, and violence. It does a community/people no good to keep looking at themselves as victims of long-ago sins, as the worst victims in the history of mankind.

Thanks. I'm sure you're right. She does what all trolls do: not respond to genuine issues raised by others, ignore problematic facts, and resort to the lazy person's "Just look it up on the internet" argument. I sort of knew that she was a troll and that wouldn't seriously engage with my thoughts, but I still didn't want her nonsense to be the last word. But even if she remains in her ignorant bubble, perhaps other more thoughtful members would find something useful to chew on.

[This is in response to Emi who blocked me.]

My point is that no one is seriously being affected by this particular instance, except for those who live to be offended. And the reason I'm engaging on this issue is because I don't think it makes for a healthy person or a society if every instance of anyone being offended leads to cancel culture and outraged demands for apology. One--of many--negative consequences of that is that when everything is offensive, when everything is racist, then those terms lose meaning and lose the power to truly convict, to truly oppose evil in the world. Kind of like the boy who cried wolf. So a non-Arab/non-Muslim person like me can still be interested in this because cancel culture/everything-is-racist victim mentality is cancer to a society and culture. So I try to point out its illegitimacy and danger whenever I can. You might not agree with me, but I hope you can at least understand my reasoning.

Also, I'm not defending the writers; I've been on record as saying that the whole Samir storyline was so-so at best; it was too cartoonish for me. But I will defend the right of writers to write comedy as they want without fear of cancel culture, I will defend the right of artists to portray things that some might find offensive, because freedom of speech--if a society is to be truly free--should trump even hurt feelings and offensive ideas.

I can understand that some people want charming without any immoral behavior. Of course, that's your right/taste/preference. But don't get angry if some other people want to portray a character in a different way, perhaps in a more interesting/fun way. To me, it made sense for Samir to have this "bad boy" image at the start, because it was fun to see that in reality he was a decent guy, a gentleman toward Sarang, a fun rival yet not a sore loser. He was portrayed as a sheep in a wolf's clothing. Honestly, other than the brief scene in the bar--which I wouldn't have even noticed if people hadn't started protesting--there was no other scene in which he was shown to be an immoral, out-of-control playboy. Instead, his role was a charming prince in love with an unattainable princess. So in the end, I think Samir was a positive portrayal of an Arab/Muslim: someone you would't mind having as a friend. Wouldn't you say that that's big improvement on the psychopathic terrorist who doesn't drink?

Also, I don't agree that every religious character has to be shown to be following his religion's rules. That'd mean, for example, no Christians committing adultery or stealing or killing or lying or disrespecting their parents--which would not only be boring but untrue. It's your job as a muslim to follow all the rules, but it's not the job of writers/songwriters/movie makers to create religious characters who follow all the rules. Ignoring the stories of sinners in any religion is not the same as respecting that religion. And I say that as someone who absolutely believes that you don't need to be immoral to have fun. But that's different than thinking that writers wrong to create such a character. You don't have to like Samir, but I don't think you can call the writers racist.

So for you the western media is wrong in its depiction of muslims, but the muslim media is right in its depiction of the west/Christians. For you, only a minority in the west research muslims while a majority in muslim countries research the west. For you, the muslims have an accurate picture of reality, while the west has an inaccurate picture of reality. That's your argument without any evidence, so I have no reason to be persuaded by you.

I've written elsewhere that the image of the Arab nations is not as bad as some like you think it is. I've said that holding events like the football World Cup and the athletic World Championships, like having some of the best airlines and hotels in the world, like attracting the best footballers and golfers, like being known to have a very wealthy citizenry--all these things are all over the media in Asia and the west. If anything, the American mainstream media is afraid to air anything negative about muslims because of the outcry of "Islamophia." So I think you can tone down your "woe is me, everyone hates us" attitude--the problem being that it's not just your attitude, it's your whole argument.

I'm not sure which of my comments you're responding to, but 1) Is the depiction of a drinking/partying Arab prince factually wrong and devoid of reality? If the answer is no (and so far, no one has refuted the claim and internet articles saying that some Arab princes are like that), then I don't think the charge of racism sticks. 2) Is it automatically racist to portray another culture in a way that some find offensive? I don't think so; not automatically. Sometimes such portrayals might offend a small minority, but they could also prick the conscience of some and inspire self-reflection and change. Of course, the scene in King the Land was neither meant to offend nor to effect change; it was literally 10-seconds out of a couple of episodes in which the Arab prince came off as charming (in a clownish way). It was too little importance to do any damage or any good--which is why I and many others are saying that the outrage and the charge of racism is way, way overblown. And I find that such outrage and claims are not reasonable and are not backed up with valid arguments; it's just another example of overly sensitive people who put feelings above facts.

No, logically speaking it would not necessarily follow that those who live in a homogeneous non-Muslim culture would have a worse opinion of Muslims (whom by definition they don't have a chance to know) than those from multicultural cultures who have lots of interaction with Muslims. For those in a multicultural society, their opinion probably depends on which types of Muslims they've met. I've never met a person from the Ivory Coast, for example, and have very little info/idea about their culture (besides the football great Drogba), but that doesn't mean that therefore I have a worse opinion of Ivory Coast than someone who perhaps lives near a neighborhood full of people from the Ivory Coast. My slate would be pretty blank.

I don't think it helps to use generalizations like "ppl from the west have ignorant concepts about muslims" as if people from the west all thought one way or had the same experience, or that people from homogeneous cultures must have negative opinions about cultures they haven't interacted with. Using such generalizations to judge and analyze every situation would only increase discrimination and racism.

By your definition, people living in homogeneous cultures (like many, many Muslim nations) would all have ignorant backward concepts about Christians, the West, and....Koreans--which your posts (and many other Arab/Muslims' posts) prove.

Is this another example of your extensive research/knowledge? That the high suicide rate in Korea is due to a lack of travel and knowledge of other cultures? As opposed to the pressure to succeed (in school and in career), as opposed to the honor/shame culture of Korea? That somehow it's America's multicultural society that's keeping the suicide rate down? That somehow the less suicidal, but far less educated, youth of America know a lot more about the world than the youth of Korea and that's what's protecting them from committing suicide?

It's deeply concerning to me that the suicide rate among the youth in Korea is so high. I think it reveals deep problems in modern Korean society, deep problems in family life, and deep spiritual problems as well. I think many people would agree that modern technology that continues to isolate people from one another is a part of the problem. I don't think it'd be easy to solve such a serious, deep-rooted problem. But to have any hope of solving it, I think a serious, accurate diagnosis is needed. And your diagnosis is junk, pure quackery. Multiculturalism and exposure to different cultures will no more solve the high suicide rate in Korea than it will solve the high homicide rate in America.

"the transatlantic slave trade which is recorded as the worst case of slavery in all of history". Another example of your nonsense "research," of your feelings reaching for exaggeration beyond the facts. By what measure was that the worst? Did it go on longer than any other instance of slavery (which has been around for as long as humans have been around)? Did it involve more people than any other instance of slavery? Was it somehow more cruel than any other instance of slavery? What about the fact that the the start of the translatlantic slave trade were Africans who had captured/enslaved other Africans and brought them to the coasts for sale? Was it white people who got the Africans to enslave one another? And what do you do with the fact that it was white people who started the abolitionist movement?

You mean facts like this? "The whole society is f-uped. They even have so much hatred for themselves and the worst self esteem, no wonder they can’t value and accept others. Such a disgusting society." Or your opinion that the portrayal of Samir was inappropriate? Other than the undenial genral fact that every nation/race has people who have done something that's sure to offend somebody, somewhere, what you present as fact is simply your broad generations about a nation/society.

I see. You took a break from watching, but you still lurk in these forums. So I guess you haven't even seen the episode with the Arab prince?