In the present case “Korean bias” intends only that Marmot’s Hole has an anti-Korean bias, which you’d have to be disingenuous to deny.

Disingenuous, indeed.

I’d come up with a response, but you use too many big words — make my head hurt.

You are arguing two rather unrepresentative general cases and misapplying them here.

Thus:

Could someone’s historical inferiority complex cause him to perceive any criticism of anything Korean as a criticism not of that thing per se, but rather of that thing qua Korean and therefore as criticism of Korea writ large?

The answer to this question is “yes” but fails to be meaningful because the question is too generic. Sure, a Korean who reacts a certain way to a critic writing without an agenda or without a bias, who is not writing on a highly politicized blog, would be operating by a “warped worldview” indeed. But what happens when this worldview is applied to the apropos critics and blogs?

And thus:

Whenever non-Koreans criticize something crappy that’s related to Korea…

Not “whenever” but specifically here at the Hole.

And:

Or maybe… just maybe… the bias is on the part of the Korean apologists?

In the present case “Korean bias” intends only that Marmot’s Hole has an anti-Korean bias, which you’d have to be disingenuous to deny. You might as well assert the Hole is not about Korea.

Speaking on my own behalf anyway, I most certainly can and do distinguish between criticism of a thing per se and criticism from a person who is interested in the thing because the thing is Korean or because person hates Koreans. That’s not the tricky part. The tricky part is dealing with the latter type of criticism when it comes around. It’s even trickier when this latter sort is thick or has become the generalized mode of discourse underlying a community of people that absorbs through its members various political opinions, values, agendas, purposes, as reflected in its norms (rules of right and wrong). The truly tricky thing is to get this community to settle in a direction that doesn’t favor or accept as normal the views of its loudest and most perverse members. Yet this is still too simple and there’s still at least one more very important but very complicated factor to consider, which I won’t explain. Obviously there is much more at stake than you understand.

abcdefg, you’re so right!

Whenever non-Koreans criticize something crappy that’s related to Korea, they are criticizing it qua Korean rather than qua crappy, whether they admit it—or even realize it—or not. Noble, objective-minded Koreans like YoungRocco, on the other hand, while certainly aware of the crappiness of the thing being criticized, are forced by the non-Koreans’ subtle anti-Korea bias to defend the indefensible. After all, there’s so much more at stake.

Or maybe… just maybe… the bias is on the part of the Korean apologists? Could someone’s historical inferiority complex cause him to perceive any criticism of anything Korean as a criticism not of that thing per se, but rather of that thing qua Korean and therefore as criticism of Korea writ large? Could such a warped worldview lead that person to employ selective reading, ridiculous logic, persistent ad hominem attacks, and continual recourse to tu quoque to deflect any criticism of anything Korean? After all, there’s so much more at stake.

“Tricky social context,” indeed!

You simply cannot discuss French movies that copy Hollywood blockbusters without mentioning ‘La Totale!’.

Other movies come to mind, first of which Nikita/Point of No Return.

But don’t underestimate the universal human tendency to take pleasure in the downfall of cocksure assholes, whether they be Director Shim, Rain’s managers (who seem more at fault than him for the world tour debacle) or YoungRocco2.

Pawi applies the same tired “you guys hate Korea” analysis to every critical exchange and, even acknowledging that broken clocks are right twice a day, he is usually very wide of the mark. YoungRocco was worse, because unlike Pawi, he had intellectual pretensions. But his critiques usually boiled down to the equivalent of “How can YOU judge Barry Bonds until you’ve hit 500 MLB home runs?” or “How can you criticize Roh Moo-hyun. When where you elected president of a country of 48 million?” Pointless and worthless rhetorical gambits.

You simply cannot discuss French movies that copy Hollywood blockbusters without mentioning ‘La Totale!’. Why? Well, this attempt at making a Hollywood-type movie was so over the top that it earned the distinction of having been remade by Hollywood. Not just that, it was remade into a movie that starred Schwarzenegger and was directed by James Cameron. How much more Hollywood can you get for a French movie?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103103/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111503/

Some of us are more experienced than that, more cynical than that, as we should be.

Congratulations.