It seems strange not to mention the Ms. A kerfuffle at all. It's an important part of his career trajectory. Not that this article needs to re-hash the details, but one sentence mentioning it and the fact that he's returning to work now would be appropriate and help contextualize the timing of this article.
Being neutral when the offending party apologizes means you're taking the offending party's side. They're mitigating…
"@AH Huh? I replied to chamzy, not you."
Ah okay. My mistake.
".. So if you cause an accident, you don't need to apologize (publicly)? You might want to reevaluate for a minute... Unless you think there is some subtle discernment between a private and public apology, then you should explain further because I don't see the distinction."
To continue your wine example to explain what I mean by private vs. public apologies: If a celebrity spills wine on another person they should apologize to that person. I would call that type of one-on-one apology a private apology. The celebrity doesn't need to also publish a public apology on Twitter to take responsibility for that type of mistake. That would clearly be unnecessary. But if the celebrity instead got into a shouting match with another person at a restaurant that ended with thew throwing their wine in the other person's face, they probably should issue a public apology that either acknowledges that they were entirely in the wrong or provides an explanation (e.g., the other person groped the celebrity's friend which provoked the argument) while still apologizing for responding badly.
"My point is, we don't know the whole story, but we know KSH made a mistake based on his apology, and that should be it."
Being neutral when the offending party apologizes means you're taking the offending party's side. They're mitigating…
@finika "Being neutral when the offending party apologizes means you're taking the offending party's side." I'm not sure why you added this comment below my response to chamzy.
chamzy's post encourages both people who side with KSH and people who side with A to post their opinions to generate debate for entertainment purposes ("i have my popcorns ready!"). There's nothing there about holding celebrities who admit or apologize for bad behaviour accountable for their actions. chamzy's post was just encouraging speculation-fuelled negative discourse between netizens for the sole purpose of entertaining other netizens that thrive on negativity.
I would also point out that your wine spilling scenario is a great example of a mistake that shouldn't require a public apology. Intentionally throwing wine in someone's face, on the other hand, would warrant a public explanation, but in that scenario I would still say that fans / the public should wait for the explanation or an apology from the parties involved before passing judgement or rushing to blindly defend or attack either party.
So these companies should know better to do their due diligence before dropping a famous spokesperson. Now they…
Fair enough. I was responding to "now they can all be sued" since that likely isn't factually accurate, but you're correct that whether or not it makes good business sense to take down the ads is a separate issue from the legal liability concern.
Saying "Let's be neutral" or "Nobody should take sides." does not make y'all almighty. If you side with KSH and…
Why are you so keen to encourage people to say nasty things and to speculate about things we'll never fully know about?
A, KSH, and everyone who has worked with KSH are all people. Our words can harm their careers, their private lives and their mental health. Just because KSH's profession is entertainment doesn't mean his private life, and any pain he may cause or receive in his private life, exists for our entertainment.
I hope this makes the netizens, including MDL users, that spent the last two days criticizing A and speculating that the accusations were entirely made up for nefarious reasons to pause and hopefully react differently to this type of news in the future. Nothing good comes from jumping to crucify a celebrity facing unsubstantiated allegations, but by the same token we should also avoid hastily assuming that any accusations against a celebrity are completely false or motivated by malice and we should avoid rushing to criticize the alleged victim or the celebrity's management company.
Remember that they are all human. Even if they seem like a saint on TV, they are all capable of making mistakes, and all worthy of the same sympathy or empathy you would have for any other person in the same position. Try not to get sucked into scandal speculation. Sometimes time will reveal more information, but we'll never know all the details of a celebrity's private life and should not assume we know them based on their public persona.
So these companies should know better to do their due diligence before dropping a famous spokesperson. Now they…
I don't really understand why you're so concerned about Dominoes and similar companies taking down a few ads. Ads are created for the purpose of increasing a company's revenue, not for the purpose of promoting the spokesperson. If an ad is going to have a negative impact on a company's revenue rather than a positive impact, they should have every right to take it down. That's just logical.
I agree that, in terms of public opinion, people are too quick to rush to judgement. I'm sure some actors unfairly lose out on roles and opportunities / have their careers and private lives negatively affected by claims that aren't true. The fault there lies with the people who rush to judgement.
I'm also sure that plenty of people in the entertainment industry have behaved horribly in the past in a way that doesn't match their public image. Some of them have likely taken opportunities away from others unfairly, or used their privilege to get away with abusing others. And I'm sure some of those celebrities are among the ones that have legions of fans committed to defending them against every allegation. And yet most of the time the public won't ever know the truth about how a public figure truly behaves in private and whether negative claims about them are true or not.
IMO the best thing we can do is to avoid putting celebrities on a pedestal. Enjoy the content they create, and when unsubstantiated allegations are made, try to withhold judgement one way or the other. When a public figure acts egregiously (e.g., publicly says or does something racist / sexually harasses someone / etc.) or negative allegations are substantiated, and the celebrity doesn't make a sincere apology or try to better themselves, I don't see any problem with people losing all interest in consuming that person's content.
So these companies should know better to do their due diligence before dropping a famous spokesperson. Now they…
"The companies that broke his contract based on vague allegations and rumors will have to compensate him."
I'm telling you that taking down ads that featured KSH is almost certainly not a violation of the contract between KSH and the companies with which he has spokesmanship deals.
And these allegations are not criminal allegations. A court will not weigh in on whether the alleged events occurred unless there is a defamation / slander suit. Even if they were criminal allegations, the companies still would not be obligated to wait for a final verdict before being allowed to take down their ads. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a rule that only the law has to follow (an individual is not supposed to be locked up until they have been determined to be guilty of an offence after a fair trial - but of course this is not really followed as most countries operate under a cash bail system where accused people are incarcerated before and during their trials). For everyone else, you simply want to avoid saying that someone has committed a crime until it has been determined by a court of law that they have done so, as you would be exposing yourself to liability under a slander suit.
Other than that, it's simply a principle that we should generally follow that doesn't carry legal weight. By the same token, as a matter of principle no one should dismiss allegations as fake simply because the accused is a celebrity. Of course we should all wait and withhold judgement where an accusation is made and the facts have not been determined. Unfortunately the court of public opinion often doesn't work like that. Many people will rush to judgement. And companies can take down ads in response if they choose to. Like I said, there is almost certainly nothing in their contracts that would prevent them from doing so. The main contractual issue would be around whether they need to make any outstanding payments to KSH, whether they can get any money that they paid him back, and whether KSH will owe them damages.
A separate issue would be instances where KSH has entered into a contract to take on new engagements (new ads, dramas, movies, etc.) where the production company has cancelled the contract due to the allegations. Whether cancellations of that type are a breach of contract will depend on whether the contracts have termination clauses that relate to these types of circumstances. I suspect that most acting contracts would include that type of clause, in which case the cancellation would not be a breach and KSH would not have grounds for a law suit.
So these companies should know better to do their due diligence before dropping a famous spokesperson. Now they…
You're misunderstanding how these contracts work. Ads benefit the company, not the spokesperson, and having to take an ad down due to allegations against a spokesperson would be viewed as damages caused to the company (even if taking down the ads also has the effect of harming the spokesperson by appearing to validate the accusations). The company has no obligation to keep an ad up in order to protect the spokesperson's reputation. And if the allegations are substantiated, the company can sue the spokesperson directly for causing damages.
If the allegations are determined to be false, the company may be pressured to apologize to the spokesperson, but it is extremely unlikely that the contract between the company and the spokesperson would allow the spokesperson to sue the company for damages because they took ads down quickly while an investigation was being conducted.
The spokesperson might be able to sue the company if the company withholds payment to the spokesperson because of the allegations, depending on how the contract is framed.
There were some really great moments in this drama and overall I enjoyed it, but I'll be honest I was also a little disappointed by it. Part of that was my own fault for going into it with high expectations.
I normally try to have low or no expectations when I start a drama to avoid disappointment, and this was a good reminder to really try to stick to that approach.
Can someone explain how she lost her cancer and how no one found it weird. I thought that was doomed to die, with…
TDK's penalty for not fulfilling her side of the contract (completing her wish for the world to be doomed before her destined-death day) was that the person she loves most would die in her place - i.e. the person she loves most dies but she lives. When she fails to complete the wish by her destined death day, the penalty is invoked, meaning that MM dies in her place and TDK's cancer is cured.
MM explains the penalty / death transfer in episode 2 and confirms it in episode 3 when he tells TDK that she should be happy about the penalty because it means she would get to live.
3 
1 
1 
Agree re: the FL's violence.
Ah okay. My mistake.
".. So if you cause an accident, you don't need to apologize (publicly)? You might want to reevaluate for a minute... Unless you think there is some subtle discernment between a private and public apology, then you should explain further because I don't see the distinction."
To continue your wine example to explain what I mean by private vs. public apologies: If a celebrity spills wine on another person they should apologize to that person. I would call that type of one-on-one apology a private apology. The celebrity doesn't need to also publish a public apology on Twitter to take responsibility for that type of mistake. That would clearly be unnecessary. But if the celebrity instead got into a shouting match with another person at a restaurant that ended with thew throwing their wine in the other person's face, they probably should issue a public apology that either acknowledges that they were entirely in the wrong or provides an explanation (e.g., the other person groped the celebrity's friend which provoked the argument) while still apologizing for responding badly.
"My point is, we don't know the whole story, but we know KSH made a mistake based on his apology, and that should be it."
I agree with this.
chamzy's post encourages both people who side with KSH and people who side with A to post their opinions to generate debate for entertainment purposes ("i have my popcorns ready!"). There's nothing there about holding celebrities who admit or apologize for bad behaviour accountable for their actions. chamzy's post was just encouraging speculation-fuelled negative discourse between netizens for the sole purpose of entertaining other netizens that thrive on negativity.
I would also point out that your wine spilling scenario is a great example of a mistake that shouldn't require a public apology. Intentionally throwing wine in someone's face, on the other hand, would warrant a public explanation, but in that scenario I would still say that fans / the public should wait for the explanation or an apology from the parties involved before passing judgement or rushing to blindly defend or attack either party.
A, KSH, and everyone who has worked with KSH are all people. Our words can harm their careers, their private lives and their mental health. Just because KSH's profession is entertainment doesn't mean his private life, and any pain he may cause or receive in his private life, exists for our entertainment.
I hope this makes the netizens, including MDL users, that spent the last two days criticizing A and speculating that the accusations were entirely made up for nefarious reasons to pause and hopefully react differently to this type of news in the future. Nothing good comes from jumping to crucify a celebrity facing unsubstantiated allegations, but by the same token we should also avoid hastily assuming that any accusations against a celebrity are completely false or motivated by malice and we should avoid rushing to criticize the alleged victim or the celebrity's management company.
Remember that they are all human. Even if they seem like a saint on TV, they are all capable of making mistakes, and all worthy of the same sympathy or empathy you would have for any other person in the same position. Try not to get sucked into scandal speculation. Sometimes time will reveal more information, but we'll never know all the details of a celebrity's private life and should not assume we know them based on their public persona.
No spoilers. Just visuals.
(2) Splash Splash LOVE
(3) Secret Life of my Secretary
Honourable mention:
(4) Cheese in the Trap - FL / SML
Gotta find the prettiest umbrella list so I can vote for the red umbrella from Misty there.
I agree that, in terms of public opinion, people are too quick to rush to judgement. I'm sure some actors unfairly lose out on roles and opportunities / have their careers and private lives negatively affected by claims that aren't true. The fault there lies with the people who rush to judgement.
I'm also sure that plenty of people in the entertainment industry have behaved horribly in the past in a way that doesn't match their public image. Some of them have likely taken opportunities away from others unfairly, or used their privilege to get away with abusing others. And I'm sure some of those celebrities are among the ones that have legions of fans committed to defending them against every allegation. And yet most of the time the public won't ever know the truth about how a public figure truly behaves in private and whether negative claims about them are true or not.
IMO the best thing we can do is to avoid putting celebrities on a pedestal. Enjoy the content they create, and when unsubstantiated allegations are made, try to withhold judgement one way or the other. When a public figure acts egregiously (e.g., publicly says or does something racist / sexually harasses someone / etc.) or negative allegations are substantiated, and the celebrity doesn't make a sincere apology or try to better themselves, I don't see any problem with people losing all interest in consuming that person's content.
I'm telling you that taking down ads that featured KSH is almost certainly not a violation of the contract between KSH and the companies with which he has spokesmanship deals.
And these allegations are not criminal allegations. A court will not weigh in on whether the alleged events occurred unless there is a defamation / slander suit. Even if they were criminal allegations, the companies still would not be obligated to wait for a final verdict before being allowed to take down their ads. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a rule that only the law has to follow (an individual is not supposed to be locked up until they have been determined to be guilty of an offence after a fair trial - but of course this is not really followed as most countries operate under a cash bail system where accused people are incarcerated before and during their trials). For everyone else, you simply want to avoid saying that someone has committed a crime until it has been determined by a court of law that they have done so, as you would be exposing yourself to liability under a slander suit.
Other than that, it's simply a principle that we should generally follow that doesn't carry legal weight. By the same token, as a matter of principle no one should dismiss allegations as fake simply because the accused is a celebrity. Of course we should all wait and withhold judgement where an accusation is made and the facts have not been determined. Unfortunately the court of public opinion often doesn't work like that. Many people will rush to judgement. And companies can take down ads in response if they choose to. Like I said, there is almost certainly nothing in their contracts that would prevent them from doing so. The main contractual issue would be around whether they need to make any outstanding payments to KSH, whether they can get any money that they paid him back, and whether KSH will owe them damages.
A separate issue would be instances where KSH has entered into a contract to take on new engagements (new ads, dramas, movies, etc.) where the production company has cancelled the contract due to the allegations. Whether cancellations of that type are a breach of contract will depend on whether the contracts have termination clauses that relate to these types of circumstances. I suspect that most acting contracts would include that type of clause, in which case the cancellation would not be a breach and KSH would not have grounds for a law suit.
If the allegations are determined to be false, the company may be pressured to apologize to the spokesperson, but it is extremely unlikely that the contract between the company and the spokesperson would allow the spokesperson to sue the company for damages because they took ads down quickly while an investigation was being conducted.
The spokesperson might be able to sue the company if the company withholds payment to the spokesperson because of the allegations, depending on how the contract is framed.
I normally try to have low or no expectations when I start a drama to avoid disappointment, and this was a good reminder to really try to stick to that approach.
MM explains the penalty / death transfer in episode 2 and confirms it in episode 3 when he tells TDK that she should be happy about the penalty because it means she would get to live.