Letās look at the logic in this ājikook is fanserviceā essay, courtesy of twitter
About a month ago, I encountered a thread on twt that was making the rounds. The author claimed the image text contained therein would DESTROY ALL JIKOOKERS ā¼ļø (paraphrase), and included screen shots of a somewhat long essay intended to dismantle common jikooker arguments in favor of their ship. Iāll share the images of the original post below for reference/receipts, but Iāll rely on quoted text in my response. Some of the replies in this thread still exist. I have screenshots of my interactions with the OP, at least. She did ask me to explain why I said her essay was full of logical fallacies. I told her Iād write a tumblr post. I was planning on posting this the next day, but she deleted the majority of the thread and I lost the sense of urgency.
Anyway, here it is for you now. Itās a lot of pics I am so sorry, and they are probably out of order please scroll on down. Also apologize for formatting inconsistencies and any errors in themātumblr is a pain and this is soooo long.
Ewkay, letās look at this. Buckle in, itās a long essay and my responses are not short, too.
Jikook is the most visibly documented close relationship in BTS. It has the most produced content, the most official acknowledgment, the most packaged moments. And yet, the volume of that documentation is precisely the reason it cannot be taken as evidence of romantic reality.
A claim we will keep track of, but I can tell you off the bat that I disagree. To start, itās a nonsequitur; your conclusion does not logically follow the premise. High volume of documentation does not nullify authenticity. Non-BTS Example: documentaries exist. there might be an element of narrative framing in the final cut, but what is captured on film is no less authentic for the agenda of the documentarian. So anything you say for the rest of this essay should support how your premise and your conclusion connect logically, if this argument is to mean anything. Not just in shipping terms, but across the board. Authenticity and documentation are not mutually exclusive. (I would even argue that volume of documentation would make it much harder to conceal inauthenticity, but note that mine is not an absolutist statement, and my argument isnāt the focus here (though on review I do lapse into my own arguments, so forgive me in advance) because you wanted a breakdown of how YOUR post was fallacious and illogical).Ā
As a fun little exercise that I am not wholly committed to, Iām gonna keep an assumption counter (this is for illustrative purposes only and not meant to be a strict count of all discrete assumptions, more a general count of how often statements are made that rely on assumptions made by the original writer).
This is Assumption #1. No proof, just claim.
Before I say anything else- Taekookers are not claiming that JK and JM aren't close. Or that they aren't great friends or emotional support to each other.Ā
While YOU, OP, might not be claiming that, legions of tkkrs make this claim all the time. No group is a monolith, better not to try to speak for everyone, especially when the evidence to the contrary is so readily visible.Ā
They have grown up together, have seen distress and fame together. I honour their bond. But what I hate, and am increasingly not being able to tolerate is the forced romantic label being attached to that bond. This has no relationship with Taekook at all.
You contradict this at the end and make it about taekook, by the way. I do that a few times too, as Iāve already confessed. Either way, itās immaterial to the debunking argument.Ā
This is also a statement made without defining your terms (what distinguishes friendly behavior from romantic?), and ASSUMES that labeling jikookās interactions as romantic (again, what are your criteria?) is forced. How is it forced? What about it is forced? Objectively?
So, leave that aside and focus on Jikook.
These pages aren't for low IQ people. So, they may leave. Only serious readers, with logical thinking abilities are welcome.
The implication here is that opinions contrary to yours are from ālow iqā individuals, and that is a bit of poisoning the well. (Thatās a fallacy that attacks the opponentās character to bias the audience against their argument).Ā
Before addressing any specific piece of evidence, let's establish the logical framework that reframes everything.
Stepping in to say that what you provide below is not a logical framework. What you provide are assertions that serve as the foundation of your argument. Notably you donāt provide evidence for them, define them with much specificity, or establish a system of evaluation for opposing interpretations.Ā
The existence of AYS, the buddy system enlistment, and GCF is not evidence that Jikook is a real romantic relationship.
Sure, I can grant you this premise, if we are operating on the same definition of āevidenceā. I will assert that your statement is also not proof that they are NOT in a romantic relationship, it does not preclude the possibility. I would argue that those three things contribute to a greater body of evidence that is both necessary and sufficient to provide reasonable justification for belief that the argument (jikook=real) is true. But again, my arguments arenāt the focus of this piece.Ā
So, for the sake of this response I can grant that, as written, by themselves each of these things are not incontrovertible proof that jikook are in a romantic relationship.Ā
It is evidence that the industry decided Jikook's visibility was commercially and institutionally safe.
Youāre saying, AYS/buddy enlistment/GCF arenāt proof that jikook are a real couple, they are proof that the industry is profiting off their ship with low risk. Roughly.
So. here is the first big flaw in your thinking that Iāll address. I know youāre going to get to your argument for why this is true later but letās pause here.
You are saying, in simple terms: high volume documentation is not proof of romance, it is proof of corporate level decision-making. This is what one would call a false dichotomy, which is a logical fallacy. Is/is not evidence are not the only two options. An analogous example in the simplest terms: āyou either love mint chocolate or you hate it.ā Thatās not true. You could be ambivalent. You could like it sometimes and not like it other times. Even just ālikingā it is excluded as a possibility in this context.Ā
But even worse, youāre combining the false dichotomy with a non sequitur. Youāre making two unrelated statements and denying one to force the other to be the conclusion. An analogous example in the simplest terms: āyou either love mint chocolate or you are a bad person.ā Thereās no logical connection there. One has no logical relationship with the other, but the structure of this argument implies that there is.Ā
The only way this argument works is if you make the assumption that institutional approval MUST mean inauthenticity.Ā Which you discuss below so letās move on.Ā
Anyway Assumption Tally: 3
Those are not the same thing. They are, in fact, opposite things.
You are boldly asserting a a false dichotomy is a true dichotomy, and reiterating of the assumption above that commercial intent and genuine relationships cannot coexist. Iāll be nice and not add this to the tally.Ā
And the entire Jikook evidential argument collapses the moment you understand why.Ā [ā¦]
The K-pop industry, specifically HYBE, one of the most sophisticated entertainment corporations in the world, does not produce content accidentally.
You have made an absolute statement. The āallā is silent, but itās there. this is overgeneralization, which is a logical fallacy. All kinds of things happen in kpop and Hybe content that is spontaneous and makes it to the final product without the company having noticed it and expressly approved it. Or is your argument that ALL Hybe content is ENTIRELY scripted and staged from top to bottom 100% of the time? You can see how this is fallacious, right? Keep this one in mind too, we will come back to it later.Ā
Also, even if it was logically sound, this is an assumption and not a fact, regardless. Unless you have done an analysis of all kpop and Hybe content, demonstrated scripting and staging for all of it, and demonstrated that there is never anything that is spontaneous or that makes it to a final product by accident, you canāt state this for a fact.Ā
Every piece of content that exists went through a decision-making process:
ā¢ Is this commercially valuable?
ā¢ Is this institutionally safe?
ā¢ Does this serve our narrative management goals?
ā¢ What does this content do to our artist's public image?
You are making some assumptions here, Iāll update the tally at the end and be nice and count it as only one. Theyāre not unreasonable criteria by which a company would measure their content, but they are assumptions not supported by evidence in your argument and used to support a fallacious conclusion, the one above.Ā
This is a fallacy of composition. You claim that because it (might be) true for one piece of content to be judged by those criteria, then ALL content must be judged by those criteria. But thatās not true, is it? Because if so, then that means dance practices are as authentic as in the soop which is as fake and scripted as bangtan bombs. Theyāre all on the same level, in your framework. And if THAT is true, then you can NEVER conclude that any interactions by ANY ships are authentic and unscripted. If ALL content is highly controlled, then NONE is authentic or natural or real. Whether itās yoonmin or taekook or sope or jikook. And if thatās the case, then you must never refer to ANYTHING put out by any kpop entity as proof of your ship, whatever it is. Because if you do, you are invalidating your own claim and your own language.Ā
And even IF this wasnāt fallacious, like I said above, itās based on assumptions that what you have listed as criteria are all actually part of the official criteria, and that nothing else is part of that criteria if itās not in your list. So I ask: How do you KNOW what their decision making process consists of? (This is a request for tangible evidence of these criteria being applied rather than an interpretation based on published content). How do you KNOW these are the only things they consider, or are there other or additional possibilities? Ask yourself: Do the artists perspectives and desires come into play at all, or does the company have unilateral say? Given comments made by the artist (thinking of things Jungkook and Namjoon have said specifically) as well as comments one of the producers of AYS made in an interview, Iād venture to say that your list of criteria is not complete, not backed by actual objective evidence (concrete things, rather than inferences based on observation) and therefore not solid ground upon which to base your argument.Ā
AYS Season 1 and 2, a full travel show required: Executive approval, Production budget, Filming crew, Post-production, Distribution deals, Marketing strategy etc.
Do you believe HYBE produced two full seasons of a travel show featuring two members alone together without calculating exactly what narrative that content would generate and deciding that narrative was safe for them to produce?
I am going to say this one time: questions are not evidence. Questions do not support claims. Questions are not proof.
Also, this is a loaded question. Thatās not a fallacy but it IS a deceptive rhetorical technique that embeds an unevidenced assumption in order to manipulate the person answering to answer a certain way.Ā
But Iāll play along, in part.Ā
Do I, personally, believe that HYBE created AYS without calculating a narrative (aka jikook=real) they assume is safe?
Honestly, if it were a question of preference, I would want them to ensure their artists safety, of course. Homosexuality being highly frowned on in Korea, if AYS was designed with a narrative revolving around shipping, that would put them in danger if people assumed they were gay for real and let their hatred and bigotry get the best of them; it could put them in serious danger. Holland, I believe, was attacked in public just for being out of the closet, wasnāt he?
So while I do agree itās possible (and the producer himself reported in an interview that there was some sus content that he had to double check with Jungkook and Jimin about before giving the final cut the OK to publish) that there is an overarching narrative in the cutting of AYS, as with all documentary-type content, I donāt think we agree on what that narrative is.
I think the narrative they assumed was safe is: āJimin and Jungkook are buds that might be a bit handsy, but ARMY loves to see BTS in cuddle piles and playful with each other so theyāll love this show.ā I donāt believe, and you have not provided evidence for or proven, that the company has filmed or published AYS or the majority of BTS content with the explicit or even covert purpose of stoking shippers or selling a narrative about their artists being HOMOSEXUALS in a HOMOPHOBIC country. Iāll make an exception for the punishment game where they made poor Taehyung and Hobi kiss in early RUNBTS; that was clearly company directed fan service. There are a few other examples, but there are also a ton of counter examples. It is not enough to point to an overarching narrative.
As established above, you havenāt provided evidence that the interactions on AYS were SCRIPTED and STAGED across the board. Some activities are staged, sure, like the āstick them on the front of the boat in front of the entire crew and see what they doā in season 1, or the games in season 2. But where is the evidence that their responses to those setups are scripted (ie. actual scripts, actual reports from staff on site, actual evidence of them rehearsing)? Where is the evidence that their actions when not in staged activities are scripted?Ā When theyāre just fooling around on their phones togetherāno obvious staging. Whereās the evidence of a script?
I do want to addāand I know this sounds like a contradiction, but if you read closely youāll see itās notāthat it is very possible for a closeted gay couple in a homophobic country to be filmed being non-explicitly/non-sexually affectionate, without feeling they are at an elevated risk for their safety, because of, among other things, the presumed heterosexuality of the artists in question by the GP. In a homophobic society, heterosexuality is the default setting. Queer people can get away with a fair amount, youād be surprised, because people will go out of their way to deny their queerness. āItās just fan service,ā people will insist, and indirectly give them some leeway to act more authentically without getting outed. That is different than a company setting them up purposefully to be in a position of increased scrutiny about their sexuality by creating a āgay fanservice showā for the reasons noted above.Ā
Back to your assumed criteria questions, though, there are a lot of factors that contribute to public perception which you neglect to consider. There is certainly always a danger of being outedāIāll mention this again when we talk about military serviceābut those risks are calculated and given what both JK and the producer have said, Jungkook and Jimin were happy to share moments that could be questionable, regardless.Ā
Now. If I were not playing along, I would also ask you: if the company is pushing a false narrative that jikook=real and AYS was scripted and staged and inauthentic, then are you excluding Taehyungās interactions with them on AYS from that scripting and staging and close production control? If so, you have a double standard; according to you, all kpop content is company directed and feeds a narrative, right? So by what criteria do you determine that person Aās interactions with person B are real and true and authentic and unscripted, while person Cās interactions with person B are not? What concrete, consistent, and reliable criteria are you applying? Or is it all cherry picking and confirmation bias?Ā
The existence of the content proves the institution was comfortable with the content.
As described above, this is a non sequitur. Approval = comfort is what youāre saying, and that is not necessarily true and does not logically follow. That said, I will agree that in most cases companies are risk averse and will avoid controversy if possible.Ā
The implication here being: the company approved AYS because they did not assess it as a risk to Jimin and Jungkook. Because they didnāt assess this as risky to publish in a homophobic society, Jimin and Jungkook must not be together.Ā
You see how thereās logical leaps there, right? Again, documenting something does not mean that it is fake. Companies can choose to accept a certain level of risk. The producer thought some of AYS was risky but he asked jikook and they approved it. In a heteronormative society, straightness is the default; they might have decided that it was an acceptable level of risk.
You have demonstrated no evidence that the chosen narrative by the company for AYS was āJIKOOK GAYā; you just assumed it is.
If Taehyung and Jungkook had āmomentsā (can I say I hate that term/phrase) on AYS, and they were romantically involved while those moments were happening on camera, then is that part of the chosen narrative? (Maybe the company is pushing BTS poly all along and we are all just too short sighted). Wouldnāt that put them in a risky situation as a closeted couple? Why would it be an okay risk for them to take, but not for the ācompany shipā?Ā
And institutional comfort is the opposite of the signature of a real closeted romantic relationship.
For the reasons stated above, this does logically follow. This is a false dichotomy. They are not āthe oppositeā, theyāre not even the same category of thing. Thatās like saying blue is the opposite of train. Youāre making a claim without considering alternatives or providing evidence for your claim. Among other explanations: Maybe theyāre okay with accepting a certain amount of risk, as proposed above.
Also itās circular reasoning. A real relationship must be kept hidden (assumption, and also a double standard for your preferred ship), therefore if a relationship is at all visible it must not be real. (Which would exclude filmed taekook moments on official content as evidence of Taekook being real, by the way. Canāt have it both ways).Ā
Before moving ahead, consider the broader pattern- Think about Yeonjun and Soobin being paired together to take care of a baby.
Or the unlimited skinship Woosan (Ateez) share. Or any other ship from any other group and the content produced around them. By the Jikook evidential logic, every single one of these is a real romantic relationship. The logic either applies universally or it applies to none of them.
Given the discussion we have had so far, the final sentence in paragraph was surprising.Ā Ā But Iāll hold you to it: the logic either applies universally, or it doesnāt apply (bc itās not sound).
That aside, what jikook evidential logic are you referring to here, exactly? My read is that you are saying that ābecause there is content made about those other ships, one must conclude they are real if they also believe jikook are realā?
I have never seen anyone make the argument that BECAUSE AYS exists, jikook must be real. Itās possible some people have claimed it, but itās not a common line of reasoning from what Iāve seen, so your blanket statement that JIKOOKERS claim this rings untrue. I have seen claims that the way jikook interact on AYS is extremely suggestive of/contributes to a greater body of evidence that they are in a romantic relationship. Thatās not the same as what youāre saying.
Alsoāwe arenāt counting beans here. People are people. I donāt know anything about these other ships but I strongly resist the implication that because Hybe okayāed AYS and these other shows with other ships(?), and the people involved in those other shows are affectionate, then if one couple is real they must all be real. There is a whole heap of context and external factors that are being oversimplified and ignored. Itās like saying, āif men cook food on tv, and the recipe on this show is bad, then all TV recipes must be bad. Your assertion as written here is false, and this is not an issue of even logical application, itās an issue of invalid and unsound logic.
Itās also lacking evidence and therefore it isā¦
AYS Season 1 and 2:
Jikookers claim: "They chose to travel together. They were comfortable enough to make a show together. The intimacy on screen is real romantic chemistry. "
1. Firstly, consider a simple question. If JK and JM wanted to travel together for genuine private reasons, for the rest, for connection, for time away from the machinery of their careers, why would they want their company to be involved in it? I'm sure they'd not want 10 cameras stuffed into their bedroom to record their private time, would they? These are two millionaires with the means and the freedom to take a completely private trip, documented by no one, seen by no one. Instead, they made a commercial show. Dozens of episodes. Produced, marketed, and sold for company profits.
Wow, thereās a lot to unpack here. Iāll rapid fire list the issues/fallacies Iāve spotted and then weāll talk through them. This is assumption + hasty generalization + argument from incredulity + non sequitur + mind reading. Four fallacies, all assumptions, and no evidence.Ā
āIām sureā is the framing of an assumption. And you lean back into the invalid argument that because it was televised it cannot also be authentic. Thatās a non sequitur as discussed at length already.
In your head you have categorically excluded jikook being a real couple as a possibility, and decided that Taehyung and Jungkook must be dating in secret. That being your preferred narrative, you find it unfathomable a real couple would make the choices jikook do, accept the risks they have, and maintain the visibility they have. Hence the argument from incredulity. And the attempted mind reading.
Then thereās the hasty generalizationāyou assume having the option to travel completely privately means that they must choose that option. But beside everything else Iāve discussed under this bullet point, you failed to consider that having a filming crew gives them a legitimate reason to be traveling together when thereās a high risk of them being spotted in public, and subsequently possibly outed against their will. They were stalked, basically, on the latter half of their AYS2 trip. So many pics and videos posted. Imagine if it had just been them without the film crew. Much more dangerous that way. I wonāt rehash the other points again my fingers are getting tired.Ā
Jikookers might argue that they wanted to share their experience with their fans.
Agreed. Possibly. But you know how else that could be done?
-Through a YouTube vlog.
- Through a social media photo dump.
- Talking about it in an interview.
None of them would have required institutional infrastructure, production budgets, or HYBE involvement.
This is basically a No True Scotsman fallacy. You are saying āno true gay couple would approach the public face of their relationship in this wayā. So if a real couple does approach it that way, you rule them out as a real couple. You are moving the goalpost. An analogous example in simple terms: āno true soccer fan would boo/harass their own teamā. ā> āa hoarde of angry soccer fans were upset over a loss and trashed their home stadiumā ā> āwell then theyāre not true soccer fansā. They are soccer fans, they just suck. You donāt get to arbitrarily change the definition of something when it doesnāt suit you or your perceptions.Ā
Youāre saying āA True Gay Couple would do what I have prescribed as the acceptable approach.ā This is again an argument from incredulityāYOU canāt believe that a queer couple would behave this way, therefore, they must not be a queer couple. Thatās a fallacy on a fallacy.Ā
ALSO your suggested alternatives for sharing with fans in an acceptable (per your criteria above) way make no sense in the context of BTS shipping wars.
Why is it when a member shares pictures on instagram of jikook itās fanservice and feeding shippers and the company narrative, but your list above suggests sharing pictures on instagram as a way to share their experience with fans free from the taint of the company narrative?
Why is GCFT or the video Jimin uploaded to twitter about their Tokyo trip referred to as company content, pushing a ship, when in your list above you suggest sharing videos as an interloper-free and agenda-free way to share with fans?
Why is talking about their Tokyo trip in interviews viewed as fan service, when you suggest it as a potential narrative-free way to share with fans?
These are all things that Jimin and Jungkook have done, which per your advice above, SHOULD BE ACCEPTABLE ways to share their travel with fans. And yet, you still consider them to be tools of the company, intended to reinforce their intended false narrative.
I will also point out the other obvious double standard: why is it that when these things happen with Taehyung and Jungkook, itās not fanservice, itās REAL, itās not narrative, itās authentic?
Are some acts of public sharing more authentic than others? If so, how do we tell what is true from what is narrative? To quote you above: the logic either applies universally or it applies to none of them. So if the only difference in criteria about what counts as evidence of an authentic relationship is whether it includes your preferred ship, then it is not evidence, itās confirmation bias and cherry picking and a whole slew of other irrational, illogical processes at work.Ā
A travel show featuring two members alone together creates: Fan engagement, Parasocial investment, Shipping community activation, Content that sustains irresolution, so, the commercially optimal state.
These statements are reasonable but as with everything else in your essay you provide no actual evidence. Iāll let it slide since these generalizations are mostly fair, even if some are reaches.Ā
Everything you see on AYS was produced within an institutional framework that approved its existence.
Ask yourself something- If a label wanted to manufacture the appearance of romantic chemistry between two members for commercial purposes what would that content look like?
It would look like:
ā¢ Two members alone in romantic travel locations
Moments of physical proximity and affection
ā¢ Emotionally intimate conversations
ā¢ Shared experiences that create the appearance of coupledom
Which is exactly what AYS produces.
Weāve talked about this ad nauseum. Argument by repetition?Ā Again, questions arenāt evidence.
You posit what a show that is produced to give the appearance of resonance would look like. Okayāand? You neglect to consider that those features would all also be present if you happened to film two people who are very close and intimate with one another, possibly even in a romantic relationship, for a prolonged period of time.
Thereās also confirmation bias and false analogy going on here. Youāre saying that because AYS and a hypothetical fanservice show have some features in common, they must also have something else (inauthenticity) in common. The confirmation bias comes in with interpreting information only in light of your preferred conclusion. That one is actually all over this essay though.Ā
When I had watched AYS, there were a few things that stuck with me.
-When two people are placed in front of cameras and expected to entertain, they entertain. Whether that means playfighting, playful flirting, skinship, or cuddling, they are doing what they were hired to do.
Overgeneralization, oversimplification, and frankly uncharitable interpretation. You are blanket deciding that all activity before a camera is false, that people who participate in a travel log are doing business gay performance, and implying that they have no autonomy. Theyāre getting paid, sure, but receiving compensation and being in front of a camera do not mean they are faking romantic relationships or romantic tension. Thatās a leap. Itās also incomplete thinking, because guess what else people starting on a travel log do? They take naps, disappear for a while to go golfing, shut the cameras off intermittently, have explosive diarrhea, sit and look at their phones togetherā¦ they do a lot in this show that is not performative entertainment. Certainly there are times where they ham it up for the camera, but thatās not the bulk of the show.
A significant proportion of what Jikookers cite as romantic proof is content that exists within a fifty-minute episode of which it constitutes perhaps five seconds- a millisecond screenshot of a fleeting moment, stripped of the surrounding context that makes it legible as performance rather than private feeling.
First of all, you have to define what a significant proportion is. 90% of things cited? 20%? And once youāve given that proportion a number, you need to show me the evidence that backs this unverified claim.Ā The actual numbers.
Also: I humbly submit that all shipping fandoms do this and some do it significantly more than others.
I would also argue that in this specific instance, what youāre claiming happens is factually incorrect: having watched the show with full context, their interactions paint a greater picture of extreme intimacy and closeness which combined with a plethora of other evidence points me to the belief that their relationship is romantic.Ā
From an argument perspective, youāre making a few mistakes with this one: youāre simplifying and generalizing the beliefs of a broad group of people and presenting the weakest version of their argument. I call that a straw man.
Youāre also presenting a double standard, as described in the previous paragraph. And youāre contradicting yourself. If a āsignificant portionā of what gets cited as evidence of romance is context-free millisecond screenshots that donāt reflect the actual events happening on screen, then HOW is that a company-directed narrative? If their interactions are not romantic unless theyāre cut down into minuscule edits in āmomentsā compilations that last only a few seconds when the source material is an hour long episode, then where is the Fake Couple jikook are pretending to be? If itās all in the eyes of the shippers, then it doesnāt matter what the actual people are doing, it will get construed as romantic regardless, and thatās not a function of who they are or what they are or who they are with or what the company wants.
And if itās all in the eyes of the shippers and not reflected in reality, then what is the argument? If itās just two dudes chilling with no tension and all the shipping clips are faked, then how is the company selling a narrative? I donāt know how many other ways I can ask this question to make you see the internal inconsistency in your assumptions.
This does sound sooooo much like one shipping community I can think of that starts with taek and ends with ookā¦ but I should keep that observation to myself, because thatās not what this essay/response is about. Right?Ā
It is also worth asking why specifically Jimin and Jungkook were cast for AYS and not another pairing. The answer is not romantic, it is commercial. RM or Yoongi would have made the show too cerebral. Hobi or Jin would have brought comedy and fun but not fanservice. Taehyung would have been quieter, more withdrawn, less inclined to perform excessively for cameras. Jimin and Jungkook do what other pairings wouldn't. They flirt casually, they make people laugh, they pull off pranks, they're individualistic enough to target solo audiences and together enough to target shippers. Every commercial box gets ticked. That is a casting decision.
Casting? The implication here is that the company spearheaded the creation of the show and directed the two of them to participate in it. This is counterfactual given that they have said on multiple occasions that the show was their idea. Jimin, primarily in s1, Jungkook playing a much more active role in the planning for s2 (if I recall correctly but please correct me if not). And in either case, if they were ācastā for this show, it does not then follow that their interactions are inauthentic. Just because it can be marketable to shippers does not mean that it is fake. But again thereās also an element of mind reading and confirmation bias involved in your assessment here and assumptions about what happened and why. Present me with evidence of company-led casting efforts and considerations and Iāll revise my opinion, but youāre just saying things and showing no proof. Well, thatās just, like, your opinion, man.Ā
Not a romantic one.
Real romantic relationships in K-pop do not get travel shows.
When real romantic relationships between K-pop idols become known, the industry response is never to produce a travel show.
Iāve already discussed the business motivated side of this claim a lot but I want to point out that you are now (again, but for the first time in a while) generalizing to all of kpop. No True Scotsman AND a sweeping generalization. Again, how do you know this to be true? And what do you mean by ābecome knownā? By the press? What examples do you have of this happening or not happening? āNeverā is a bold statement to make. What quantitative analysis have you done, who have you interviewed/what interviews have you referenced to see if the featured artists on those shows werenāt justā¦ so firmly in the closet that the company didnāt know? Itās circular reasoning (if real, no show; therefore, if show, not real), and itās also unfalsifiable. There is no way to KNOW this for a fact because (itās not logical and) people keep secrets and youāre not privy to them. Doesnāt mean theyāre not actually queer.
Youāre over generalizing through your absolute statements annnnnd assuming that the industry response is always the same for every instance ever.Ā
The industry response is: Silence, Denial, Crisis management, Strategic distraction
The existence of a produced, distributed, marketed travel show is not compatible with the industry's known response to real romantic relationships. Real romantic relationships get hidden. They don't get production budgets.
Youāre just restating your argument from above but with a different hat on. No evidence for your assertions. Assumptions everywhere. Letās move on.Ā
Oh, and now we get to your second? major claim:
The Buddy System Enlistment:
Jikookers claim- "They chose to enlist together through the buddy system. This is a deeply personal decision. It proves they want to be together even in the most serious context of their lives."
You say ājikookers claimā as though any of what is written above is false.Ā Is there anything in this claim that you object to? I think this would be true for any pair of people electing to do the buddy enlistment.
The buddy system allows recruits to request assignment to the same unit as someone they know. It is used by friends, colleagues, family members, and classmates. It is a practical logistical choice, not a declaration of romantic relationship.
I would agree with this for the most part. I would caveat that while itās not categorically a declaration of romance itās also not categorically an exclusionary criteria for romance. I would also point out that you said jikookers claim itās an important decision made bc they want to be together above, but here the claim you are arguing against has suddenly changed to romantic relationships. Theyāre not the same claim.Ā Who made the claim about romantic relationships? Why did you change the target of your argument?
Now consider a specific hypothetical. During the period of their enlistment, imagine a South Korean citizen drafts a formal complaint letter stating that these two individuals are in a closeted gay relationship and that their serving together violates Military Act Article 92-6, demanding legal action. This is not an abstract scenario.Ā
You are correct, itās not abstract. When jikook announced their joint enlistment a number of taekookers and Jungkook solos wrote to the military in protest claiming that they were gay and shouldnāt be allowed to enlist through the buddy system. This could have been incredibly dangerous. But thankfully the mass petitioning was not taken seriously.Ā
While the buddy enlistment is not meant for gay couples to enlist together, bc homosexuality is bad in the eyes of the military, that doesnāt mean gay couples havenāt done it anyway and just not been honest that theyāre gay and together. I would have to do some research to see if there are any documented cases of this kind of thing happening, but whether it has or hasnāt, the fact remains that it is a possibility. And, if nobody has reported it, given the various social and legal implications of making that kind of report, I wouldnāt be surprised that if there was such a couple they might choose not to disclose.
ALSO true is that the argument you are going to make based on your non-hypothetical scenario is predicated on the belief that the worst case scenario would be compelling enough on its own to negate the possibility of any other behavior. Ie that the worst possible consequences of being caught would be enough to dissuade them from accepting the risks and pursuing joint enlistment anyway. We will talk about it more below but prepare yourself: thatās fallacious reasoning.Ā Ā
In 2017, twenty military men were prosecuted for homosexual conduct at military camps conduct that was hidden and closeted following a covert investigation. The state pursued and punished them. Post-2022, the law was modified so that same-sex conduct is only punishable if it occurs on camp rather than outside it but the institutional hostility and the legal architecture remain.
Hold both of these things simultaneously.
1. Jikookers are arguing that Jungkook and Jimin are a couple who chose to take this specific risk, maximizing their institutional proximity and public visibility, in a legal context where a single credible complaint could cost them not just their careers but their whole life. That two artists of their standing, in a country where one rumour can destroy everything, would voluntarily do this if they were in an actual relationship.
I see you gearing up for an argument from incredulity.
2. If they were in a committed romantic relationship, the buddy system would confine them to shared living quarters with dozens of other soldiers for eighteen months. Jikookers have never been asked to explain the logistical and legal reality of maintaining a physical romantic relationship under those specific conditions. Do you claim that Jikook maintained abstinence for 18 months, even after living so close to each relationship under those specific conditions. Do you claim that Jikook maintained abstinence for 18 months, even after living so close to each other?
I am confused by this line of thinking and questioning. I should say that questions donāt constitute proof, again. But either way, if they chose to enlist together to āmutually support one another through one of the toughest moments of their livesāā¦ Assuming theyāre in a relationship, they would do this aware of the risk. Given that they are aware of the risk, they would likely attempt to minimize their exposure to additional risk which would arise from sexual activity on base during that time, either confining their activities to their time off base, or practicing abstinence, or figuring out some other arrangement. Couples in love who regularly have sex are capable of not having sex for a prolonged period of time. Thatās not unheard of even without these extenuating circumstances. Why would that be surprising to you?
Why is suggesting a period of decreased sexual activity or total abstinence so unrealistic? Is it because theyāre men, or because theyāre gay? Do you know and can you prove for a fact (again, based on evidence rather than inference), that theyāre not on the aroace spectrum and maybe sexual activity isnāt something thatās frequently on the menu? Normal relationships both include and donāt include sexual activity.
And I will reiterate that there was a mass campaign to write to the military, accuse them of homosexuality, and protest their joint enlistment before their service began. They experienced part of your worst case scenario before they were even in fatigues. People are complex and make complex decisions based on numerous factors and considerations. They donāt always act in maximally risk-averse ways. Just bc you wouldnāt take that risk doesnāt mean that their acceptance of it is ridiculous or unheard of.Ā (Thatās your argument from incredulity). Maybe being with their loved one was enough of a benefit to outweigh the negative of fucking each other right seven days a week.
Alsoāand I know I shouldnāt, butāwerenāt taekookers hoping beyond hope that taekook would do the buddy enlistment? Telling each other for years before enlistment was on the horizon that they WOULD enlist together? If they had, how would you have accounted for the logistics and legal reality of being in a relationship with another man? Would they have been able to remain abstinent for 18 months? Or what would the story their shippers have chosen be? And if they are dating, and enlisted separately, how would they then have endured 18 months of separation? This is all nonsense and forgets to factor in that they are PEOPLE who make CHOICES and we are not privy to the processes by which they make those choices.
The simpler explanation is that they are genuinely close friends with a real emotional bond and absolutely nothing between them that would constitute grounds for a legal complaint and requires no logical acrobatics.
The romantic explanation requires accepting that they chose to take a potentially life-altering legal risk for the purpose of proximity they could have arranged privately, far more safely, after discharge.
youāre conflating what we are willing to accept with what is actually true. Againāan argument from incredulity. Itās not a question of which argument is āsimplerā. Occamās razor doesnāt really apply when reality is complex. And people are complex. They often have multiple motivations for behaving the way they do, so looking for the āsimplestā explanation ignores the reality of human psychology and can lead you to draw the wrong or incorrect conclusion.Ā This is a misapplication of that heuristic. They are not paper dolls who are only looking at the question of enlistment from one lens. Their decision making may be completely opaque to an outsider, and end up leading to a course of action you would consider incomprehensible. That just happens. Because they are people.
Assumption tally: 16, I think. Itās been a while since the last notable one (itās been a lot of questions), so I lost track for a moment.
And now on to my favorite:
GCF:
Jikookers Claim- "Jungkook chose Jimin as the subject of his personal film project. He filmed him in beautiful locations with obvious care and artistic attention. This is deeply personal and romantic.ā
All of that is true. I am guessing you take issue with the last sentence.Ā
GCF is a genuinely beautiful piece of work. I am someone who really loves JK's cinematography style and I understand why he chooses to shoot the way he does.
JK having JM as the subject for his GCF, and JM being kind enough to model for it, makes me grateful or we'd have never experienced JK's talent for cameras.
A reminder that gcft was a surprise gift. Jimin didnāt know what he was being filmed for or that it would be posted on YouTube. āBeing kind enough to model for itā implies he was an active and knowing participant in what the end product would be, that he was performing a role (see extensive discussion over and over above) and rejects the reality that he was surprised by the end result.Ā Youāre sneaking an assumption in there and not providing any evidence to support it.
Assumption Total: 17
But what does it prove exactly? GCF proves artistic attention and genuine affection. It does not prove romantic relationship.
We keep coming back to this but I would argue that as a lone piece of evidence, youāre correct that itās not sufficient evidence to conclude that theyāre in a romantic relationship. I personally am perplexed by people who watch it and deny seeing ANY kind of romance in it, but thatās not the point. Either way, I would continue to argue that it contributes to a greater body of evidence that indicates a romantic relationship.Ā I would also reiterate that it might not be decisive proof of romance, but it is absolutely NOT proof of the absence of romance.
Because if a piece of produced content for another member was the sign of romance, I'd like to list the following:
Iām gonna stop you right there. That is not the argument and to say it is is disingenuous. āJungkook made a video therefore they are datingā is not the argument that jikookers are makingĀ as you suggest here (āmaking content about a member is proof of romanceā, restated) The argument being made by jikookers is: āJungkook made a video as a surprise gift that came with a fully paid-for trip to a different county, the video included a song by a gay artist with lyrics that are very blatantly about a gay relationship and he paid to be able to use that music, he used a YT video about filming a video for your partner as a reference for the shots he chose, the vibes were very intimate and romanticāso they must be dating.ā Donāt straw man. Annnnnnd. Again, I think itās not conclusive evidence but strongly suggestive and when combined with the diverse and extensive body of other evidenceā¦
1. Its also said the 4'o clock and Friends by Tae were also written for Jimin.
The song is called friends. Hard to spin that into romance. Iām not going to respond further to an argument made to a distorted version of the common claim.Ā
There have been countless times Tae has expressed of his love for JM openly. Should I consider those times as romance too?
I am under the impression that youāre not actually shooting for a logic-minded conversation about common claims for a ship you disagree with and reasons and evidence for why those claims are false with this post. Please correct me if I am wrong. Anyway. False equivalency. There are different kinds of love and not all of them are romantic. I dunno, this was a weird point to make and it doesnāt even work as an argument.Ā Itās almost reductio ad absurdum?
JK shot a hiking trip with Jin, although it never released. He shot Tae's Winter Bear mv but wasn't credited for
(genuine question: if he wasnāt credited how do we know he filmed it? Can you point me to where that was discussed? I ask bc there is a film production credit on the YT video and winter bear is one of my favorite Taehyung songs but I joined the fandom a long while after it came out so I would love to see where he was talking about it as Iāve l likely missed it! Actual response to this comes below)
he shot the Life Goes on mv where infamously when RM appears on the screen, the colour grade changes from cool to warm. JK has shot other GCFs with other members sharing the screen along with JM. Should I consider all of these as signs of romance?
More reductio ad absurdum. And again, your argument here is a straw man. See the comment above. The argument wasnāt āhe shot content therefore romanceā; this is disingenuous.Ā
GCF was released officially.
I thought you said sharing their travels on a YouTube vlog to their fans was a great way to share? Actually Iām pretty sure if you scroll up itās even in a whole bullet list in the AYS section. How are their fans supposed to find the video if itās not published through the BTS account? I guess they could make a new account and then link it through twitterā¦ but they didnāt have personal twitter then so theyād have to use the company twitter account again and youād just say it was company content because of that, right?Ā
This is the critical point that Jikookers consistently overlook. GCF was not a private document that leaked. It was not a secret film found against the subjects' wishes or shared through private social media channels. It was released. Through official channels. It became part of the public content record.
See above for your self contradiction.
Which means its existence was institutionally approved.
As discussed at length above: and?
If Jungkook had privately filmed Jimin with genuinely romantic intent, in the context of a hidden romantic relationship would that film be released through official channels?
The answer is obviously no. A private romantic document would remain private.
Your lines of reasoning are very rigid and very prescriptive. This is an argument from incredulity, false dichotomy, non sequitur, and circular reasoning. Even a dash of no true Scotsman in vibe. You sure have some favorite fallacies. The options you presented are not the only two options (Itās either romantic or itās approved by the company but not both ā> nope, thatās a fallacy); your conclusion doesnāt logically follow from your premise, but you use it to justify your conclusion based on your premise circularly (if romantic then private, therefore if not private must not be romantic). You say no TRUE romantic relationship would be visibleāyou even say that itās obvious.
I actually think itās very romantic to express your love, intimacy and affection for your partner in a highly visible way like this, even if itās coded, or not a complete representation of your relationship when you are restricted by the society you live in from expressing your love openly. So I disagree. Itās not obvious. Different people approach relationships differently. There is no sole, obvious, course of action. Againātheyāre actual people, not paper dolls.
The fact that it was released, that it was approved for public distribution, is the institutional comfort signal.
The most critical comparison is- Jungkook also photographs and films Taehyung extensively, consistently, across years. But that photographic record has not been packaged into an official release.
It exists in the behavioral record in behind-the-scenes footage, in candid documentation, in the observational record. It has not been institutionally surfaced.
Ohhhh I see. Iāll remind you that you said that Jin and Jungkook filmed a hike together that was never released. And that Jungkook has tons of pics and footage of Jimin that has never been released. That there is a lot of behind the scenes content with the both of them.Ā Extensively, consistently, and across years. Also, who puts out that behind the scenes content that you use to justify your claim that taekook is real? Would it perhaps be the company, such as in AYS or welives or etc? And if we arenāt looking at what comes out from the company, Jungkook has also posted some of that content on his personal accounts. And Taehyung has also posted some of the content with Jungkook! Their cute pics from Hawaii, or their hand holding matching outfit pic was shared too (by hobi? I donāt remember). Taehyung and Jungkook have also appeared publicly together on shows and at events. Thatās all company approved too. By your logic, that would imply that they are not a real couple. Because let us remember your own strong assertion before: The logic either applies universally or it applies to none of them.
What Iām getting at above is that the āprivate coupleā argument that taekook shippers favor, is fallacious and there is so much cherry picking done when people argue this. If a private couple would not share their content as you claim, then what do we do with all of the content that they have shared? Discount it as proof of their relationship?
Which leads me to ask: if real couples are private, and private couples donāt share publicly (for safety!!!), then how do we know that Hobi and Taehyung arenāt actually together? Hobi films and photographs Taehyung consistently over time for years and doesnāt post the majority of his stuff. Without cherry picking, double standards, confirmation bias and logical leaps, the logic you are presenting here to discount one ship also directly discounts your own ship. It DOES NOT WORK.
Youāre making an unfalsifiable claim.
There is no way to disprove it, because the evidence for your claim is that there is no evidence. And if an absence of evidence counts as evidence, then anything can be true as long as we believe, right? Take a look in any shipping space any you will see people say ānothing can change my mind. Even if they say theyāre not together I know theyāre lying.ā If nothing can contradict what a person believes, even direct and objective evidence, thatās concerning.Ā
Why? If Jungkook's filmed attention to Jimin is evidence of romantic feeling, what is his consistent, extensive, unproduced photographic attention to Taehyung evidence of? And why has one been institutionally packaged while the other has not?
The asymmetry of production what gets made into content and what doesn't is not random.
I am surprised you donāt address the possibility that there is so much content of them becauseā¦ maybe they just spend a lot of time together? And that happens in front of the cameras as well?
Also, another self-contradiction. Didnāt you say that jikook āmomentsā were all manufactured nothing-burgers that are cut and spliced and over analyzed and out of context and not reflected in reality? if thatās the case, then how is there so much volume of such moments? So much volume that you insist the company is pimping these two men out to the foolish masses (that compose a smaller % of the fandom than taekookers, if we go off tag frequency on ao3).Ā
It reflects institutional calculation about what is safe to publish.
It solely reflects that? Is there any possibility that it could also arise from or indicate anything else? The answer is emphatically yes! If you want to strengthen your argument it would help to address this. Avoid empty assertions that donāt have actual evidence. Alsoādefine what you mean by safe. Prove how they make their decisions about what to publish, with evidence, and that it makes your assumption valid. Iāll wait.
Now bring it all together. Jikookers' argument rests on three pillars: AYS, Military, GCF. Every single pillar shares one common characteristic: Institutional approval and visibility.
Iād probably suggest restructuring the end of your piece. It needs to be tied together more. You need to restate your claim and, crucially, summarize the logic that connects your premises to your conclusion. I think your intended conclusion was ājikook is a lie,ā but you forgot to include that, the most important part.
You said ābefore I address any specific piece of evidenceā at the top and I believed incorrectly on reading it that you were going to present proof that they are not romantically involved, but what you meant was you were going to address three pieces of evidence commonly used in arguing for jikook and then trying to debunk those. Thatās an interesting strategy, given that those three pieces of evidence are only a tiny part of the whole body of evidence jikookers usually present.
Basically, your argument boils down to the assumption that because they are in a homophobic society, a gay couple would never show intimacy or affection in public (or by enlisting together in the military) and a company would never approve of or create vehicles for them to do so. Your arguments are riddled with assumptions without evidence, non sequiturs, false dichotomies, straw man arguments and arguments from incredulity, cherry picking, no true Scotsman fallacies, circular reasoning, sweeping generalizations and also oversimplifications. You neglect to consider the complex tapestry of human psychology and its diversity, and apply your rigid, prescriptive thinking to others (I think thatās called projectionā¦?) to interpret their actions without considering that their perspectives, risk tolerance, priorities and contexts are different than your own. Your disbelief does not affect the validity of the proposition.Ā
Basically, you raised some questionsāsome baffling, some interesting, most leading or loadedāto lead to your desired conclusions. But those conclusions are based on assumptions and neglecting to consider or account for other possibilities or explanations. It reeks of confirmation bias.Ā
If it wasnāt evident by now Iāll say it plainly: your argument doesnāt hold under logical scrutiny. I said as much in your now-mostly-deleted thread where I challenged you on it and you asked for a link to this tumblr post, but I have some screenshots of the exchange I can upload if anyone wants to see it. I hope this post helps you understand why.Ā
If I were to offer you two pieces of advice in response to what you wrote, as kindly as I can with my frayed patience:
If someone is going to take the stance of intellectual or logical superiority over others by posting an essay like this one, purporting to center on logic and reason and how theyāre going to DESTROY people who make the arguments they are trying to dismantle: read it aloud first. Have a friend read it. Ask them if it contradicts itself anywhere. Ask them if thereās any parts that seem like a stretch or inconsistent. Read up on logic and fallacies and check your work against them. If you promise evidence, provide it. Examine the heuristics you rely on, and whether theyāre helping you reach correct conclusions or making you look silly online.Ā Examine why you think what you do and whether it holds up against scrutiny, but do it with an open mind and actually consider the possibility that you might be wrong.Ā
Second but most importantly. I say this often: we donāt know the boys. We havenāt read their contracts. We arenāt privy to their innermost thoughts. We donāt know the details of their day to day. They are whole people with their own opinions and reasons for doing things, their own values and priorities. We know about them to an extent, but we donāt know them. We donāt talk to them. We donāt have access to them like that. If youāve never had a moment of sonder (beautiful word, which describes the moment of realizing that every person lives a vivid, complex life, just as vivid and compex as your own), and then the accompanying realization that we interact with the versions of those people that we have created in our minds and that our mental version of them fall shortāthen now is the time. Donāt mind read. Donāt project. Donāt cherry pick. Accept that you canāt control others. Accept that you might love someone, an idol for example, but not agree with their decisions. Or want something for them that they donāt want for themselves.Ā And that their not fitting into your mental image of them is not a betrayal or a lie or something to be explained away; itās their reality, and your mental image needs owing to reflect it. Real love would respect that reality, and if you donāt respect it, then examine your feelings. Is it really love?Ā
Anyway Iāve yapped enough.Ā
(With a final caveat that I am happy to be corrected on errors in my analysis, explanations or definitions, and am willing to accept constructive critique about my own heuristics, but that I am not willing to engage in my ship vs your ship discussions. Thatās not what we do here. Usually. This was an exception because I got mad.)
