You don't deserve to blame Irene. (Eng.)

You don't deserve to blame Irene. (Eng.).pdf

0.30MB

You don't have to excuse someone else's mistake. But does that mean that everyone needs to blame collectively, flocking around on the Internet? Someone's mistake doesn't give you the right to condemn it, nor the moral obligation that you have to, just because the one is a famous celebrity. Since when has there been such great legitimacy for taking a person out of her place and destroying her life?

 

I'm not even asking you to advocate for her. I'm just asking you to stop personal attacks and speculation.

 

Even the grounds of the blame is not clear. The information you can actually learn from a post by Lookooks, an Instagram user known as an editor and stylist with 15 years of experience, posted on October 20, 2020, is very limited. All we can know in detail is the writers' subjective experiences and emotions.

 

 

"Shot by an electric needle from the one, I lost my words (for embarrassment)."

(그 주인공이 쏜 전기침에 쏘여 말을 잃었다.)

 

 

The Instagram post by Lookooks starts with this kind of vagueness and do not develop in detail anymore. No specific facts about what Irene actually said were mentioned. There is no specific information on what happened. What Irene did is exaggerated with metaphors such as an electric needle (전기침). Irene's behavior was presented as a serious thing only because it had caused Lookooks to lose her words. In other words, we don't know what actually happened, nor why it is such a serious event. The rest of the Instagram post that follows is largely the same.

 

 

"Standing still, with my hands, feet and brain tied,"

(손과 발, 뇌가 묶인 채로 가만히 서서)

"In front of the disgusted face and messed bullshit,"

(그 질색하는 얼굴과 요동치는 인간의 지랄 앞에서)

"I had no choice but to stand like a fool who could do nothing."

(아무것도 할 수 없는 바보가 되어 서 있을 수 밖에 없었다.)

 

 

Do you think this sentence is more specific than the previous one? Still, it's hard to know what happened. Only the subjective feelings of Lookooks who went through the incident were written. As reasonably as possible, I could only say:

 

① There was a harsh or serious conflict.

② In the conflict, Irene insisted on something with a strong attitude, which might sound angry.

③ In that situation, Lookooks couldn't respond properly and felt helpless.

 

It is not known whether Irene's actions were actually unjust or unreasonable during the conflict. Anyone can get angry or speak up for a good reason. It is common for this to happen between person-to-person, not between Gap-to-Eul. (In Korean, Gap refers to the one who has greater power over Eul. And Gap's unjust abuse of power over Eul is called Gapjil.) Rather, when there is a problem with the stage costume, it is justifiable for an artist to disagree with the stylist or to assert something with a strong attitude. Considering Irene's usually good behavior, especially, it is highly likely that such a thing happened.

 

 

An Instagram post that expresses embarrassment about Lookooks' post. It is not public now.

An artist's objection to the stylist's work ─ Is it GapJil and should be compared to Jo Hyuna's actions? I've worked a lot as an editor, as an entertainment company employee, and as a stylist. And Irene, whom I've worked with, was just a talented and smart artist who was sure about what she wanted and knew how to demand it. I've never thought before that her usual behavior was bad as GapJil. Rather, I've been impressed all the time when she carefully expressed her gratitude to the people around her. It is difficult to understand the current situation, which arose so suddenly, that describes her as a GapJil villain to a staff.

 

In conflict situations, it is usual that both sides have some fault. However, Lookooks does not reveal what Irene was specifically responsible for. Nevertheless, Lookooks, the only innocent one in her story, describes everything as if it were Irene's fault.

 

 

"Ignoring her responsibilities about the situation, rather, it seemed that the one can't even hear the request for patience and repeated explanations."

(자신이 만들어 놓은 앞뒤 상황은 물론 이해를 구할 시간도 반복된 설명도 그 주인공에겐 들리지 않는 것 같았다.)

 

 

This is a one-sided argument, and we do not know Irene's side about it. Rather, it may turn out that Irene's objection was justified when all circumstances were revealed. If so, Lookooks' repeated explanations (반복된 설명) and the request of patience (이해를 구하는 행동) may be turned out to be just a poor excuse that doesn't help solve the situation. Again, we don't know.

 

 

"Greetings were skipped, in a chair, with her cell phone in her hand, she lashed out words, point the finger at me while I was standing."

(완벽히 인사는 생략, 의자에 앉아 서 있는 내 면전에 대고 핸드폰을 손에 끼고 삿대질하며 말을 쏟아냈다.)

 

 

The above sentence is the only one that specifically describes Irene's behavior. This may contain some truth. Lookooks wrote a post like this when these memories remained deep. However, the sentence does not point out which one is responsible or which one's argument is more legitimate. The sentence above is solely to blame her rude attitude.

 

Irene's rude attitude, if it's true, may have hurt the writer. But the sentence above is intended to define Irene's behavior as GapJil based on that alone. This is unreasonable.

 

Does Irene hire stylists herself? Is she in a position to control the lives of them? No, Irene is just an artist who is hired by an agency. She and the stylist were not Gap and Eul. They met as individuals, and as professionals. And if one causes harm to the other's professional performance, the harmed one, of course, could get angry and have full rights to make objections.

 

The ideal way to cope with a conflict is to take a comfortable position for each side and talk with each other calmly. The Instagram post describes Irene as being too excited and impatient to try to solve the problem in a desirable way. But is such behavior only allowed for Gap? No. This kind of situation can happen to anyone. (P. S. on Dec 22, 2020: Recently, this happens even to Tom Cruise.)

 

Who was sitting and who was standing when conflict occurred would likely be decided just by chance. The scenery in which the artist is sitting and the stylist is standing is actually very natural in backstage, and can't be a problem in usual circumstances. Does the one who was accidentally sitting become Gap and the person standing Eul? Holding a cell phone in her hand while talking may be a matter of attitude, (P. S. on Dec 22: My parents will blame me if I do this. I think this is usually a bad attitude for Koreans.) but it cannot be evidence of a GapJil behavior. Rather, Lookooks' post reveals the circumstances in which she felt extreme resentment and inferiority simply because of the arrogant and rude attitude of a young woman, (P. S. on Dec 22: Arrogance and rudeness depend on the relative ages between Koreans) regardless of the essential elements of the conflict or the legitimacy of both sides. And since the young woman is a famous and popular artist, Lookooks may have felt that Irene is Gap and herself Eul. However, it is absurd that such feelings define a Gap-Eul relationship. Rather, Lookooks seems to have thought that she could possibly damage the artist's reputation using an audio transcription file that is not even publicly verified to exist, just because Irene is a famous and popular artist. Then, who really is Gap, and who is Eul?

 

 

"She was so agitated that I didn't even know if she was talking to me or to everyone in the room."

(나한테 그러는 건지 그 방에 있던 모두에게 그러는 건지 모를 정도로 흥분 상태였다.)

 

 

In fact, the sentence above is probably the only objective part (which doesn't necessarily mean it's true) of the entire Instagram post. It is clear that there must have been many people in the space, and all of them have witnessed what really happened. (P. S. on Dec 23: Until now, none of those people have testified that Lookooks's argument was correct or reasonable. Rather, third parties who knew both Irene and Lookooks have pointed out that Lookooks were also not fully innocent.) Lookooks pointed out that Irene was incredibly agitated, which is a neutral expression compared to the previous expressions such as the disgusted face and messed bullshit.

 

Perhaps it might be true that Irene was extremely agitated. However, again, we must admit that we do not know her point of view. We don't know what made her so agitated, and we don't know whether or not that's what she usually is like. Rather, for many people who have worked with her and have known her usual behavior, the dominant reactions to the claim are that all the story was something unimaginable. Even Lookooks didn't claim that she had experienced such a thing more than one time. Nevertheless, she wrote as if others had suffered such a thing, and as if she was representing all the victims. (P. S. on Dec 23: No other victims are known until now.)

 

If Irene was that agitated, rather, I think we should take this into account even more. It was not her usual mood, but an exceptional one. Anyone can get into a state of agitation for some reason. If that happens to you, the people around you would try to calm you down and then give you the chance to resolve the conflict peacefully, and that's a normal response. It is not common nor desirable to try to blame a person's entire character and integrity on the basis of a single event. In fact, many of the people whose names and relationships with Irene are known, willingly testified how kind she is and how much she respected people around her. On the other hand, Lookooks was overwhelmed with resentment after a single incident and acted solely to fulfill her revenge. This is really poor behavior.

 

 

"I'd better take action against her. I was an editor and a reporter who was paid for conveying the correct facts by writing articles and for maximizing their effects and results. I'll spend all my energy to do what I can do, and use my brain in a smart and clever way. It's been a while (to realize) how reliable an act of revenge is to a human being..."

(그녀를 향해 행동을 취해야겠다. 나는 글로 정확한 팩트를 전달하고 그 내용이 더없는 효과를 내기 위해 결과를 남기고 돈을 받고 일했던 에디터였고 매체의 기자였다. 앞으로 내가 할 수 있는 걸 모든 에너지를 동원해서 그리고 내 두뇌를 영리하고 영악하게 굴려볼 생각이다. 한 인간에게 복수가 얼마나 큰 의지가 되는지 오랜만에...)

 

 

The paragraph above tells us what kind of person Lookooks is, or at least what she thinks she is. She thinks herself smart and believes that she can act in a clever way if necessary and spend all her energy to achieve her revenge. She also believes in herself, whose career and experience in writing accurate facts (which I doubt) and producing effective results would help her revenge. When she left the post, she was full of enormous hostility, malice, and vengeance to attack and pull down a person. Lookooks shows a psychological state of justifying her vengeance even more with the conviction that she, who has a hypertrophied self-consciousness, should not suffer the insults ─ How dare! ─ from a young woman.

 

I doubt. Is this an idea that a normal person can have? Is it reasonable to believe only in such a subjective and emotional post and to act as if everybody has a duty to blame Irene?

 

This way of thinking is very similar to that of Choi Jong Bum who had threatened late Goo Hara. The threat was to publicly expose a sex tape abusing the fact that such a video would result in even more serious damages as the victim was a female celebrity. His threat worked successfully, indeed, destroying and finishing the victim's life, and causing secondary victimization on various social media including YouTube. The primary and secondary perpetrators thought that they could easily attack the victim just because Goo Hara was a female celebrity, and somehow believed that they should attack her. Are these normal or reasonable?

 

Do you believe so? Do you believe that celebrities are supposed to be condemned more? Do you want all their lives and achievements so far to be denied without a clear basis for it, and do you believe that you have the full right to generate rumors or make bad comments until you get what you want?

 

 

 

On October 22, 2020, at 21:00, Irene publicly posted an apology on Instagram. Her agency also revealed that she apologized to Lookooks in person. And Lookooks accepted the apology and said in her post that this solved the problem.

 

 

"Because from the time when I determined to get this right, my fundamental goal and the purpose of my will was first, Ms. C's promise that she would not do that to anyone in the future, second, her apology in person to two of my team members. I got an official apology yesterday and stopped everything because I achieved my original goal."

(처음 이 일을 바로 잡아야 한다고 생각한 시점부터 제 의지의 근본적인 목표이자 목적은 C씨가 '앞으로 어느 누구에게도 그러한 행동을 하지 않는다는 것에 대한 약속을 받는 것'과 그날 그 일을 당했던 저와 제 팀 2인을 '직접 만나 사과를 한다' 두 가지였기 때문입니다. 전 제가 목표했던 목적을 이뤘기 때문에 어제 공식 사과를 받고 모든 것을 멈춘 것입니다.)

 

 

Lookooks defined her goals (not before but after the action): to get Irene's apology and to be promised that a similar incident will not happen again. It also stated that those goals were achieved. But looking at Lookooks' first post on October 20th, I don't know if the goals were really that simple, or if the action was reasonable. Lookooks did not just ask for an apology for a single incident but rather launched a condemnation that could smear Irene's character and integrity as a whole. And such a condemnation spread and developed into numerous character assassinations by SNS users. Then, who can get this right? Lookooks' behavior was extremely irresponsible and unscrupulous.

 

 

It is not known who wrote the above Instagram post. It points out that there may be problems also with Lookooks' behavior, and recalls that there are many things we still do not know about Irene's point of view. Above all, it points out that, it is very unfair to openly condemn one who has much to lose, especially when it's from the one who has nothing to lose, 

It's ridiculous that there are many people who believe that this one-sided post is true. Cheering and supporting (a revelation) is what they're supposed to do when it turns out to be true. You wrote, as if you were a fighter against tyranny, that she was rumored to be a crazy bitch and indeed a crazy bitch when you experienced her. If you have been at a workplace, however, you probably know that no one becomes outrageously rude without any cause and context. You framed it very well just for your own interests. You have neither a good reputation in this field, and are you free from your past of this kind of hysteria, framing, and revelation? I'm sure you know well that you're also an insane bitch to the people you've worked with. Politeness? Conscience or common sense? These are not what you are famous for. As I know, you can't work anymore with several big agencies because of your previous conflicts with them. You might not have much to lose, and be able to overstate what happened and to blackmail the company saying that you have an audio file, but isn't your opponent already losing too much, regardless of whether or not you mentioned her name publicly? I don't know who is doing GapJil. Just publish the audio file. Please, do it. I don't know how great an audio file you have, but you'd rather open it and take your punishment as you deserve. That would be fair, right?

 

Irene's apology means that she had done something wrong, for which an apology was required, but the apology doesn't mean that Lookooks' point of view is the absolute truth nor that Irene's personal integrity should be denied. She did something wrong, yes, but exactly what was it? We don't know it, and Irene's point of view is still not fully revealed.

 

In any conflict, both sides are responsible to some extent. But the one who is more responsible and has more to lose, usually, is supposed to apologize first. But if one side apologizes, will it make the other side free from its responsibility? Still, we have to admit that there is a lot we don't know, and we shouldn't blame Irene based only on the one-sided story of Lookooks. It is even harder to think that a moment of conflict and disappointment represents one's entire personality.

 

Netizen's actions have exceeded the level of asking for the truth or making rational criticism about the case. People who were never interested in Red Velvet are now searching for their past activities and fan videos available on YouTube, only to find possible flaws and make bad comments, all of which are not essential nor even related to the case. The videos that the haters cite as evidence that Irene's personality is problematic are actually showing just cute Red Velvet members playing with each other and having fun, all of which old fans of Red Velvet and Irene have watched dozens of times and have found nothing more than lovely. Only celebrities are subjected to these kinds of things as the thorough Eul of our society.

 

In reality, not in their imagination, there has never been a single serious incident other than what Lookooks experienced. Rather, there are numerous cases where Irene expressed her affection for her members, dancers, hair staff, fans, friends, family members, and basically everyone around her. Nevertheless, the haters are not accepting these shreds of evidence at all, saying "She might be kind only to her fans and people she is close to, but not to the other people," or "It's not surprising that only the good stories are made available and the bad ones are not." There is no sense of balance in their condemnation. If one person had been kind to 99 people and was harsh to one person only in a single conflict, isn't it more reasonable that what she is to those 99 people is her real personality and what happened with the other one was caused by the negligence of both sides?

 

Those who speak carelessly as if they know one's entire life and truth, based on a single story in which the writer herself was the only innocent one and Irene guilty of all, believing there must have been something tremendous in the audio file that was not even verified to exist, ignoring the stories of Irene's noble and good character provided by those who worked with her for many years for being biased, have neither justification nor moral obligation to do that. They just have fun doing that. Haters, shame on you.

 

 

Original Korean Version: [GMT+9]  06:15 On Oct 24. 2020.

FIRST POSTED (as not fully translated): [GMT+9]  01:23 On Dec 22. 2020.

LAST UPDATED (as fully translated): [GMT+9] 04:50 On Dec 27. 2020.

PDF file uploaded: [GMT+9] 10:07 On Dec 28. 2020.