#that's the difference

We want her with WHOEVER SHE CHOSES.

People are really like "Squid Game did this bad, them portraying this thing how they did in the show means the writer is bigoted" when that's literally on purpose??? Hwang Dong-hyuk isn't "misogynistic and you can see it in his writing", he writes characters in a world that is misogynistic. Sang-woo didn't say that he doesn't want women in his team because Hwang Dong-hyuk hates women. He said that because Sang-woo grew up in a misogynistic world and adopted those worldviews. That's also proven because all of Squid Game's female characters are strong characters with determination and motivations and a personality that doesn't fall into the useless woman that needs to be saved trope. In fact. Jun-hee specifically doesn't want to be saved at all! Myung-gi tries to team up with her and help her so many times and most of those times she rejects him. How is that misogynistic writing? You can't tell me the woman who killed her abuser or the woman who fled a very controlling country to save herself and her brother or the trans woman who is so strong and competent or the religious woman who is able to easily build a following is misogynistic writing. They die sooner than a lot of the men because a lot of the Men in this show don't care about women. That's not misogynistic writing, that is writing that correctly portrays the misogyny of our everyday world. If you can't differentiate between the two then I don't know either

Also because some people say female characters or specifically Jun-hee are just plot devices: Every character in a story is a plot device. Every character serves a purpose for the story, that's actually really important for a story because why else would a character be there if they are completely useless to the story? The thing is though that a character that is a plot device turns into a character that is an actual person when you give them a personality and characteristics outside of their purpose for the plot. And every character in Squid Game has that!!

Can you really call someone a 'good person' if, say, they’re a doctor who has saved countless lives, but at the same time, they’re a massive sexist and a blatant racist who thinks women are solely to blame for their own assaults? Keep in mind, he’s never actually harassed anyone himself, and he doesn’t go around shouting slurs in people's faces. He doesn't ask for medals for his work, and he couldn't care less about being thanked—he just does what he’s paid for, or maybe he’s just genuinely invested in the craft.

For some people, the red line is a teacher who comments on their students' appearance or intelligence—someone who is basically abusive and bullies a student (like Harry). Yeah, sure, he’s a hero, but even taking that into account, some people will never see him as a 'good man' because a few good deeds or words don't just magically erase the shitty ones.

Does that mean a person is just being a sheltered kid who needs to grow up and see the world through the eyes of a cynic?

Your comparison doesn’t hold up, and the issue here isn’t a lack of objectivity it’s that you’re lumping together things that are not morally equivalent and don’t operate on the same level.

A teacher with a bad attitude, inappropriate comments, or even abusive behaviour in a classroom is criticisable and can be harmful, yes. But that belongs to one axis: everyday interpersonal misconduct. A man who blames women for sexual assault operates on a completely different level: he is symbolically justifying a structural form of violence against an entire group. It’s not just “having a bad opinion” or “being unpleasant” it reproduces a logic that has historically been used to excuse perpetrators and discredit victims. You’re trying to measure “being a good person” like it’s an Excel sheet where good deeds cancel out harmful beliefs. Moral judgment doesn’t work like that.

A doctor can save thousands of lives and still be a deeply prejudiced person. That doesn’t “erase” or “cancel out” their prejudice. But it also doesn’t automatically make them a monster. It simply shows that moral evaluation is not binary, but contextual: you can acknowledge the positive impact of someone’s actions without endorsing their worldview as morally acceptable.

As for your example with the Snape/Harry: finding a rude or harsh teacher more morally “unforgivable” than someone who blames victims of sexual violence is not a matter of “cynicism vs maturity.” It’s a question of moral priorities that are, frankly, quite questionable. One is individual misconduct in a specific setting; the other is a belief that contributes to the dehumanisation of victims on a systemic level.

So no, this isn’t about people being “too sensitive” or “too cynical.” It’s about you comparing things that aren’t comparable in order to sustain an overly simplified idea of what makes someone a “good person.”

That's not to say they don't genuinely like [insert medium/genre here]. They do! It's just...

If they're a reader, they're content picking up an intriguing paper back at the airport on the way to their beach vacation but otherwise don't read a lot. For movies, every few months they might catch whatever is the buzzy blockbuster with their mates. For music, it's whatever top billboard hits is playing on their algorithmic Spotify Playlist or local radio station. For video games, it's that they hop into Fortnight a few times a week to hang with their friends over VC. Whether due to a lack of time or genuine deeper passion, they're generally not going to dig much deeper into the medium than that. And that's fine!

If you're passionate about your medium/genre, it can be frustrating! "There's so much more cool stuff if everyone would just—"

Everyone won't Just. They're casual fans, and by nature, they'll generally just grab what's readily at hand and has good word of mouth. That's why it's important for the Passionate Weirdos among us to helpfully push more diverse voices and interesting pieces into the mainstream. But expecting the casual fans to swim out of the mainstream to find that stuff themselves is like expecting a dog to turn into a cat.