I wish more people understood that what a character does is a narrative vehicle used to portray a situation or further a plot. Rather than assigning moral value to fictional individuals from their actions, I believe thinking critically about how and why Vivimeng chose to depict those characters doing those things is a much more valuable skill to have.
E.g how does Vivimeng present violence differently between the different couples, and what does this suggest about Korean society and gender roles? Is it an attempt at subversion, a lampshade, playing it straight (well not quite straight lol), is it feeding into differing perceptions? - Instead of thinking about the characters as people and judging them based on that, e.g 'Luka fans must be terrible people because the character did something terrible'.
I also think the fandom has an issue with the words fetishising, normalising, and romanticising, because of this inability to distinguish personal discomfort from morality. [However I do not believe this is a result in 'declining media literacy' because that implies that people in the past had more etiquette (not true, see Voltron for details), and may propagate the neoconservative concept of moral decay, which I do not personally agree with as it's often used to justify authoritarian rules on groups of people. We've always had a small but loud part of the fanbase we won't like.]
Ivantill fans do not fetishise gay relationships - a lot are queer themselves or using queer media to figure themselves out if they're questioning, and even if they aren't, there is nothing wrong with a non-queer person enjoying the dynamic. It might be annoying, sure, but rather than exploring what exactly makes them uncomfortable, the fans say 'problematic' and leave it there. It's especially irritating as a queer person who has been sexually assaulted; it's upsetting to hear that as I must be predatory/misogynistic towards women that have been sexually assaulted to enjoy what for me what was an interesting narrative depiction of the cruelty of self-sacrifice, which used a forced kiss as a metaphor for that.
Equally, Mizisua fans are not romanticising sexual assualt in Zombie Stage if they enjoy the complex emotional situation of Mizi and Sua and the all-consuming desperation of their relationship, and it's impossible to say these fans are normalising sexual assault in real life. "If Sua were a man... if Ivan were a woman..." feels awfully distinctive of someone who has not gone out and explored the other side of the conversation in depth. Trust, the debate is already there and roaring.
I can understand the attempt at reasoning things, but people don't back it up with evidence and instead rely on moral shame to convey what could be a very interesting point about sexual assault depictions in media or whatever! I may not agree with you but if you're going to throw shade do it right!
Expanding more on Ivantill, I also think it's a sweeping generalisation to claim that it's one-sided, forced, or that Till shared no interest and no toxicity. Vivimeng in my opinion (feel free to disagree ofc! this is the joy: open up discussions without immediately shutting an opinion down, find the merits, find the points of contention. healthy debate fostering) have done an excellent job as portraying Till as emblematic of maladaption. In trying to make a subersive, safe space for himself in the face of an abusive owner, he ultimately supports the system he was raised in. Just as 'toxic' as the others.
Disrupting the R2 song like he did resulted in the imminent death of Acorn, another human being that had his future instantly ripped from him (in an arguably more condemning way than Luka, by not allowing Acorn to even sing) and killed Freddie, the alien in a class beneath even humans, which reinforces the violently enforced hierarchy and competition of segyein society, due to disregarding others's autonomy. Vivimeng depicts him in R3 as turning away from freedom with Ivan, which alongside showing a selfless side (perhaps wanting to bring others with him) could represent the repercussions of denying oneself happiness if it is not achieved perfectly, thus reflecting as a mirroring lack of freedom in the people affected by this decision (those that care about them, such as Ivan).
Like idk there's a lot to discuss, but equally alongside condemnation, saying ohhh X character did nothing wrong is 1) ignoring how their character is presented and 2) treating them.like an actual person.
Maybe instead for a starting point, focus more on the decision to make Hyuna pale in merchandise - because that's something I find interesting about the cultural view in Korea of a darker skinned woman like her. The lack of her melanin is a very real (maybe not plot but marketing-wise for the companies selling the Hyunas) choice ripe for exploration! I personally find it uncomfortable because I see how much it reflects traditionally classist and colourist beauty standards associated with and enforced by (as I am seeing this through a western lens) Western nobility. I'm going to do more research and read some more arguments about this from people from South Korea and other countries outside of my small range so I can formulate more of an argument :3
That's about it, sorry for yapping so much. Couldn't cover everything and I'm almost certain I've made mistakes, but that's my attempt to vent! 😅