tiloto's Topics (39)

Because he is white.
He is only tanned by work/sun in the novels. But it looks like that the KML artist overdid the tanning, since some manhwa readers really thought that he has a natural darker skin color, which isn't the case.

To be fair most of them are little kids 14-15

I didn’t mean to follow u lol idk how to use this app, anyways. They look like kids bc they are kids #－.－)

Hanako is 13 and nene is 15-16

This is why media literacy is important.

Reducing Cirrus to a “horrible person who got forgiven easily” ignores a huge part of what happened in the story and what it’s actually trying to show.

Yes, it’s true that he fucked up a lot of things. He manipulates people, pushes away his only friend who cares about him, deletes messages without permission, and sabotages relationships. I’m not justifying his actions, but you have to understand that those behaviors, which look like pure selfishness or cruelty, come from the context of his life.

The reason people like this story is not because it’s perfect, but because it beautifully encapsulates life and human complexity. Especially for me, Cirrus is a relatable character, not because he’s perfect or morally good (which he clearly isn’t), but because he feels human and real.

Cirrus didn’t grow up in an emotionally safe or loving environment. His mom died when he was young, his father blamed him for her death, beat him when he acted up, constantly brought different women home, and never gave him the validation he desperately chased and fought for. He was bullied at school, SEXUALLY ASSAULTED by the one teacher he trusted as a father figure, and learned at a young age that adults weren’t safe and love wasn’t stable.

Of course, it makes sense that he doesn’t know how to trust people or form healthy friendships or relationships. Chan-il was literally his FIRST REAL FRIEND, and even then he didn’t know how to act, so he mirrored him just to be liked. That's a survival behavior.

Do you know that the majority of what people call “manipulative” are actually just defense mechanisms from someone emotionally unavailable and terrified of abandonment? You can research it if you don’t believe me.

For example, the way he tries to sabotage relationships makes sense in psychological. Why? Because for him every new relationship probably felt like proof that he was being replaced again. Yeah, it’s immature and unhealthy, sure, that’s true. But remember, he’s just a traumatized kid, trying his best.

If you read critically, you’ll know that the story isn’t showing, “He felt bad so everything is fine,” like you said. But, it’s showing someone slowly unlearning toxic habits and trying to change to better for himself and the people around him.

You don’t necessarily have to like him or want to be friends with someone like him in real life, but calling him and others like him a "horrible person", mischaracterized and flattens a really complex character or person into something extremely black-and-white based on self-ideals and bias.

Cirrus isn’t meant to be a good person like how the usual script dictates, he’s intentionally meant to be a damaged person trying to figure out how to be better and learning how to love, and that’s exactly what makes him such a compelling character and piece of writing.

I think just because someone had a bad life is not an excuse. You can have an awful childhood and still be a horrible person. Just because there are reasons for what you did does not make it okay. Everyone has reasons for the things they do. Every single horrible person in the world has reasons (some more sympathetic, some less sympathetic) for the horrible things they do. Those things are still horrible.

This person is valid for their opinion, and it is not a lack of media literacy to want a character that did awful things to be held accountable for those awful things. Yes, he can heal and be better, but it is weird to me as well that characters who do awful things are so easily forgiven just because they had sympathetic reasons for doing those things. I can't just trust someone who has betrayed me, even if I hope they figure their shit out and become a better person.

Yes, you're totally right, and I agree with what you're trying to come across. But NO ONE is saying that a bad life excuses harmful actions or magically makes them easier to forgive. What I did was EXPLAIN the behavior, I NEVER JUSTIFIED his behavior. It's not the same thing.

Of course, understanding the reason or the WHY doesn't erase accountability, but rather adds context.

As I've said, if we reduce every flawed character (or person) to "They did bad things, so they're a horrible person," we ignore how trauma, neglect, and environment shape us. That's what they call moral black-and-white thinking.

Real people and well-written characters aren't that simple. That's why I've explicitly said, quote for quote:

"You don’t necessarily have to like him or want to be friends with someone like him in real life, but calling him and others like him a 'horrible person' mischaracterizes and flattens a really complex character or person into something extremely black-and-white based on self-ideals and bias."

And also yes, I agree that everyone has reasons, but not everything carries that same weight. Someone who acts out of pure cruelty, selfishness, or pleasure is different from someone who acts based on fear, abandonment, or survival/coping mechanisms. Although both can cause harm to the people around them, they differ in terms of intent, growth, and capacity for change, and that matters a lot.

Another thing to consider is that accountability doesn't have to mean permanent rejection. The course of action differs based on the person. (Well, personally, you can choose to permanently not trust someone who betrayed you. No one's stopping you or saying that's wrong.)

For Chang-il, Skylar, and others the forgiveness doesn't mean nothing happened. It means that Cirrus hurt them, but they see him trying to be better.

If characters are perfect and not allowed to have redemption, then most character arcs wouldn't exist and would be utterly irrelevant. Stories, especially those about growth, require failure first, even in our lives. Otherwise, we're just watching one-dimensional, flawless characters or people, which isn't realistic nor compelling.

Again, as a reminder, it's completely okay, valid, and understandable not to personally like or trust someone who betrayed you. But it's also valid for others to forgive if they see genuine change. Different characters and people react to things differently, and that's actually more realistic. Of course, if everyone reacted the same way, then life would be more predictable, right? But it's not, so it's still okay.

So it's not about excusing their abomination of an action, but about recognizing that people can be both responsible for their mistakes and capable of redemption, and people can choose whether to forgive them or not.

Idk how to like comments but just wanted you to know you're so right and ppl are going to argue with you cause they are taking it personally that they are objectively wrong due to their lack of or unwanting to understand what was right there

I agree with what you're saying for the most part, and I think maybe we're arguing past each other. Of course I also believe it is up to each person to decide if they want to forgive someone for how they have hurt others. And intent does matter, which is what I meant by "(some more sympathetic, some less sympathetic)" when I was discussing peoples' reasons for doing things.

I think it is justifying his behavior rather than explaining it though when you tell someone who thinks he is a horrible person that they lack media literacy and he is not because he had a rough childhood. That is the part I disagree with you on, not everything else. You can have a rough childhood and still be a horrible person. Him having a rough childhood is not what excuses his actions.

I also for the record am not arguing he is a horrible person. That is something that in my opinion is up for debate. I'm just saying I think you should respect the opinion of the person who thinks he's a horrible person and not degrade them over it because it is a valid take. I can also understand the argument of those who don't think he is a horrible person. It is not black and white, just as you were arguing, and there is gray area. So let people have their opinions on his character, and not everyone has to agree with you or it means they lack media literacy.

I get it, we might really be arguing past each other a bit, maybe because I’m not just referencing your post but also the original commenter. And to be more clear, as we’ve both agreed on, everyone is allowed to feel differently about a character, so in that part it wasn’t an issue.

Where I disagree is the part where you said I’m justifying his behavior, when in reality I’m just explaining the context. Those two things are not the same.

There’s a clear boundary between DEFENDING an action and ANALYZING those actions. That’s specifically why I brought up his childhood trauma. It’s an analysis, not making excuses to be forgiven.

Also, I would first like to apologize if it came off as degrading or insulting. Looking back, I really did go too far with my choice of words. But I’d like to say that “media literacy” (welp, there’s probably a better term but I forgot it, and that’s just what first came to mind ) wasn’t meant to degrade or insult, but to critique the interpretation.

So how did I come up with that conclusion? Media literacy (or reading comprehension, whatever) is about understanding how stories construct characters. So if someone reduces a layered, trauma-shaped character to just a horrible person, it flattens the narrative. AND I’m not claiming the OG commenter is a horrible person for that (I never did). But it might be interpreted that way, so I am holding myself accountable for my mistake.

And yes, you’re absolutely right, someone who had a rough childhood can still be a horrible person. I’m not saying otherwise. There's no disagreeing with that point. My point, again, is simply that CONTEXT MATTERS when judging the character. Because if we ignore the context, then we’re not really engaging with the story, but just applying our own moral labels.

That’s why I said that the OG commenter is indulging in black-and-white thinking. I know there’s a gray area, that’s specifically why I mentioned it two times in a row, because that’s where us humans exist (and the same goes for Cirrus and other characters).

This is the second time I’m putting this quote, word for word:

"..... mischaracterizes and flattens a really complex character or person into something extremely BLACK-AND-WHITE based on self-ideals and bias."

Additional quote from second attempt/comment:

"As I've said, if we reduce every flawed character (or person) to 'They did bad things, so they're a horrible person,' we ignore how trauma, neglect, and environment shape us. That's what they call moral black-and-white thinking."

Soooo, just like how it’s valid to think he’s horrible (and yes, people can have their own opinions), it’s also valid for someone to debate, challenge, and critique their opinion. My disagreement and discussion of why isn’t meant to be disrespect. But a way of saying that the interpretation is oversimplified. If you like I would be glad to cite each thing.

yeah, that's all.

I still agree with you about complex characters and their flaws and what not. To me, "you lack media literacy" just seems like the new way to call someone stupid, which is why I took issue with that implication. I do think too many people lack media literacy these days though lol, it is a genuine problem (I read a lot and am frequently shocked by the lack of ability to understand nuance that is displayed by the people I interact with at my college). But I just didn't see that in this context because I think the og commenter wasn't expressing an opinion that read like they didn't understand the plot to me. I think their opinion is valid.

Also, it seems like you're defending their actions only because your response read as upset and like you didn't respect the original commenter's opinion. You are defending their actions if someone talks about the horrible things they did and thinks it makes them a horrible person and you are telling that person that this opinion means they didn't read critically (implying that if they only understood why the character did what they did, they wouldn't be saying this). If you think the character is not a horrible person because of their intent, okay, but I think it is important to understand that just because they had good intentions does not shield them from criticism, and this person's comment that the character is a "horrible person" comes from the belief that his intent does not make up for his actions and his actions are too egregious to let understanding where they came from lead to forgiveness (I personally feel this way about rape, for example - I hate that rape is such an easily forgiven thing in BL and wish the whole "but he was abused as a child" excuse would stop being thrown around in comment sections as though this makes it okay and means i should forgive) - that is just their opinion, and I believe it to be a respectable one, even if you disagree.

I'd also like to apologize if my comments come off as harsh. It is difficult to debate with someone through text and not sound mad... haha. I'm not mad. In fact, I'm really happy because I think this might be the first time I've gotten to have such a long argument with someone online without it devolving into insults. I'm a big fan of having respectful disagreements and enjoy a good debate ^w^ hope you feel the same & I'm not just pissing you off

Hello, thank you for taking your time and explaining your side more clearly. I believe I understand better where you're coming from!

Especially the "media literacy" part, as I'm reflecting, I've realized it can really sound like calling someone stupid. It really wasn't my intention, my bad, but I understand, so that mistake is on me. I'm genuinely sorry for the wording I've used and what it might have caused.

Looking back, even if it was meant as a critique of interpretation, it still carries a negative connotation, especially in text. So yeahh, I learned now that it's not just what we say, but how we say it that matters.

But I think we still disagree that what i did was "explaining context isn't the same as defending actions." (I don't think I need to expand/explain this more.)

And yes, their opinion is valid, that's true. But validity doesn't mean it can't be challenged or debated. Discussion wouldn't happen without questioning each other's interpretations.

Also, it might really seem like I'm defending his actions, but I'm not! I understand the OG for pointing out those behaviors because I was also like that at first. I really disliked Cirrus back then and was wishing for Chan-il (he's my type, so I was really devastated at first hehe).

My comment was really just me trying to open a new perspective, especially when I read this misguided interpretation:

"..I feel bad, and everyone forgives him. Because apparently feeling bad is enough reason to be forgiven.."

"..And then he's like must be nice being rich about his father, but he is the person benefiting from it the most.."

"...Also didn't he drive away all the stepmoms..."

And etc...

I'm not defending him (cirrus) or disrespecting them (OG). I'm just offering a different perspective, that you can hold someone accountable and still acknowledge that the context shaped them, and etc... Both can coexist.

To highlight, I'm not really a fan of mischaracterization (and Anti-intellectualism), even if it's a character I hated or absolutely despised. So I must've either felt obligated or got triggered and came off as aggressive. Sorryyyy

There's more I want to highlight, but I noticed that I've been yapping forever, and it's kinda embarrassing for me because I look like a die-hard fan or something similar (I'm not) HUHU. I'm sorry for the long message, and I'm not really sure anymore if the structure or outline follows a logical flow, so please understandddd

I also appreciate you pointing out that the OG take can still be valid even if we disagree. I took a step back and realized that maybe it's just a difference in values or personal boundaries.

Another thing, really appreciate your patience and how respectful you are this whole time! I've genuinely learned a lot just from this conversation! And honestly, this kind of discussion is rare, so this is actually nice lollll

PEACEEEE OUTTT

Scratch my initial comments, here's a better one, I've applied everything that's proper.

1) “Cirrus was a pretty horrible person and an even worse friend.”

This is a fair take, but it's not a fact, rather a conclusion. He's absolutely a frikin jerk, a bad friend, manipulative, insecure, and defensive. BUT the story didn’t paint him as cruel for FUN or malicious by NATURE. Welp, most of his actions came from fear, abandonment issues, and coping mechanisms he learned as he grew up. YES, he is deeply flawed and unstable, but not simply "horrible."

2) “He feels bad, and everyone forgives him. Because apparently feeling bad is enough reason to be forgiven.”

Absolutely true, feeling bad is not enough, it never was to begin with. But by reading closely, we can see that the story doesn’t really show forgiveness happening EASILY just because of guilt. The story didn’t TELL, but rather SHOWED the consequences, broken trust, his friends distancing themselves, and him trying to change in a really-really awkward and imperfect way. The forgiveness wasn’t instant but a process. You can see that the narrative shows that regret is the initial step, but growth is what truly matters.

3) “Like didn’t he delete your text messages? Was he not blackmailing you?”

Yes, those are OBJECTIVELY wrong, and broo was a real messsss Cirrus copes through control and manipulation because that’s the only way he knows how to. Healthy ways are out of the window by now lol. But Skylar acknowledging Cirrus’s wrong actions doesn’t automatically mean forgiveness. It means he understands, but he didn’t excuse nor forgive him easily. Broo Skylar was even tempted to punch the hell out of him, but he loves him, and you know what love does to people, and it’s also his choice to forgive him.

4) “He treated Chan-Il like shit when all he did was be nice. And he's like, you're only being nice to make you feel better about yourself."

This is THE ONE that showcases Cirrus’s insecurity more than his cruelty. Remember when he pushes Chan-il away? Yeah, it’s because he doesn’t trust kindness and thinks there’s a hidden motive. (Who wouldn’t, tbh, imagine being in Cirrus’s life.) That’s his defense mechanism acting up. And yes, it’s absolutely unfair to Chan-il, but his self-sabotage makes sense (I'm not justifying it tho)

5) “..must be nice being rich about his father but he is the person benefitting from it the most.”

This literally is what triggered me the most. Why? Because it’s more of HYPOCRISY and PROJECTION. REMEMBER, he hates wealth for what it represents (his father, the neglect, emotional damage), even if he materially benefits from it. For an applicable example for better understanding: people can resent the very system they’re trapped in.

6) “Also didn’t he drive away all the stepmoms..”

Yes, he did. At that time, he was a traumatized kid who was blamed for his mother’s death. His father stopped caring and loving him and kept bringing mistresses home, and the only way to keep his father’s attention on him was to drive them away because he felt threatened and replaced. He’s not some mastermind who enjoys doing it thoo bruhhh

7) “He like purposefully drove a wedge between Chan-il and Skylar multiple times.”

Right, his jealousy and fear of abandonment were acting up. Is it immature? Yes. Manipulative? Yes. Does that make him irredeemable? Not really. Whether it’s teens or adults, they sabotage relationships when they feel insecure (I also did). Yes, it’s ugly and immature, but it’s also a very human thing to do.

8) “I could never be friends with someone like him IRL.”

Valid. But you can still like a character without wanting them in real life. For example, you can like them for being compelling, tragic, or interesting without having to trust them personally. That’s what fiction is for, exploring messy people safely.

By the end of the day, we’re both judging him differently. You’re judging him with your own morals, while I’m judging him narratively/psychologically. Yes, they’re both valid lenses, and they answer different questions.

It’s okay to dislike him, but ultimately reducing him to just a horrible person is not.

And now we have an answer for:

“But IDK apparently everyone loves the story.”

There are still side stories missing, which are not adapted to manhwa.^^
He is a dominant alpha, they are all affected one way or another.
He at least stopped sleeping around, became a good father, and is still a good friend to his friends. But Keith is still Keith, he still has anger issues.^^

Ong

same gorlllll

it kinda rubs me the wrong way or sum
like idk
dumb mc are just annoying to read about

He has BL MC syndrome pray for him

Nah bro they’ve always matched each others freak. Dragon and mc are the same jskkjsjkjsj

bro always been weird. He had no questions about the family dragon and marrying said dragon in episode 1.