beta
I’m not even a Jaekyung stan, but the sheer volume of bad-faith hate made me realize: many of you genuinely lack the emotional and social intelligence to engage with traumatized characters. You don’t understand pattern recognition, emotional regulation, or how people develop under systems of reward and punishment. You’d make terrible writers and even worse therapists.
Jaekyung is a textbook case of someone shaped by emotional suppression and a society that weaponizes anger and punishes vulnerability. He is emotionally stunted because that’s what kept him alive. His mother (whom we know he reveres) taught him that survival is an individual project, and society rewarded him for aggression and self-preservation. She showed him that putting yourself first is a matter of SURVIVAL. So now, he acts instinctively.
He has PTSD and operates on a fight-or-flight reflex. He doesn’t want to hurt others, but he does, because he’s triggered. He’s in denial about his trauma and his emotions, and we know that because his body, his health, is betraying what’s buried beneath the surface. Jaekyung and Dan’s backstories are KEY to understanding this story.
Jaekyung is subject to violent outbursts because he doesn’t know how to regulate his emotions. His proclivity for violence is clearly exploited by the sport he practices. He’s not “romanticized.” He’s written authentically. You’re just not equipped to process morally complex characters. His violence is disturbing because it’s meant to be. But it’s also symptomatic of trauma, masculinity, mental health in sports and more.
There was so much space for rich, meaningful conversation. Instead, we get the same shallow takes:
“JJK is toxic,”
“JJK is abusive”
“I don’t like traumatized people acting like traumatized people.”
What are you even reading for?
And while we’re moralizing: Dan literally raped Jaekyung in one chapter. He got him drunk (he admits it), ignored signs of disorientation, and took advantage of him while he was clearly incapable of informed consent. The next day, Jaekyung didn’t even remember. Dan’s internal monologue during that scene? "He's a like a completely different person"
“If he’s in the mood to indulge me today, I might as well…”
But you skipped right over that because it didn’t fit your narrative.
A gentle reminder: personality is moderately hereditary. And before you say, “Well, I was abused and didn’t become an abuser,” understand that gene expression varies based on experience.
Studies show personality is largely shaped in childhood. You’re probably not abusive because you weren’t rewarded for hostility, you were rewarded for empathy and cooperation. You likely have close friendships, emotional safety, and support. That’s called survivor bias. It’s easier to believe you “turned out right” through merit, rather than admit that fate or your environment was simply kinder to you.
It’s hard for you to admit that you were luckier than Jaekyung because you think his wealth and celebrity (which you envy) make him “better” than you. YET Mingwa clearly demonstrates that money is of relative importance to one's happiness. And you missed that entirely.
Some of you even compared Jaekyung to Hitler. Others wished violence on his 6-year-old self. All while pretending to care about abuse victims.
Let’s be honest: you’re not outraged on principle. You’re just angry because the character makes you uncomfortable. And instead of sitting with that discomfort, you lash out.
Meanwhile, the people who actually understand this story keep coming back because the narrative invites complexity. We’re still mid-story, and yet some of you are already delivering final verdicts with half the picture.
Kim Dan’s arc is just as important. His character speaks directly to cultural expectations, Confucian values, trauma response, and moral ambiguity. But you’re too busy policing fictional characters to recognize the larger social commentary.
And when you finally get off your moral high horse, ask yourself:
Why are you so comfortable hating Jaekyung?
When you say “He has everything!” to pretend you’re not punching down, you’re projecting.
And frankly, you might be more manipulative than him, because at least his intentions are shaped by survival, not self-righteousness.
And let’s be honest: most of you aren’t here because you care about real-world harm or survivors. You’re here because criticizing this character gives you a sense of moral superiority. You weaponize buzzwords and outrage, but there’s no follow-through; no effort to support real causes, no understanding of the complexity you're so quick to judge.
It's performative, plain and simple.
Meanwhile, that same energy could’ve been directed toward a deeper reading, toward understanding what this story actually offers. Instead, you flatten it with judgment, and in doing so, you undermine the story’s ability to reach people who might actually see themselves in it.