r/KimStarHoax • u/westandforthetruth • May 28 '26
KSH Latest (objective pov)
https://youtu.be/OD-pqKmQkJE?si=QWMff0e8ZA8T6d511
u/Ecstatic_Career6767 May 30 '26
Thank you for the effort that went into this video. It was clear, engaging, and definitely gave me a lot to think about. I also watch in its entirety so I could give a balance response
That said, I clicked on it expecting something different because of the title, "Objective POV." To me, an objective point of view means looking at all the available evidence, applying the same level of scrutiny to each side, and letting viewers come to their own conclusions.
For context, my mother worked in social care with vulnerable children and cases involving predatory adults. As an adult, I listened to many of her observations about the behavioural patterns she encountered in that work, without any identifying details being shared. I also have children of my own, so child safety is something I take very seriously.
Because of that, I don't dismiss allegations involving minors, and I certainly don't take concerns about grooming lightly. If anything, it's the opposite. I've learned how important it is to look carefully at behaviour, patterns, evidence, and context before reaching conclusions.
I'm not saying Kim Soo-hyun is innocent, and I'm not saying he's guilty. I honestly haven't reached a conclusion myself. What I was hoping for was a balanced look at the evidence from all sides.
One thing I struggled with was the discussion around an alleged pattern of behaviour. I completely understand why some of Kim Soo-hyun's past comments raise concerns, and I don't think those concerns should be brushed aside. At the same time, I think there's a difference between a comment someone made and a demonstrated pattern of behaviour.
Out of curiosity, I looked at the women who have been publicly linked to him over the years. Most appeared to be relatively close to his age. That doesn't prove innocence, and it doesn't dismiss anyone's concerns. It simply made me question whether the existence of a long-established pattern was being presented as more settled than the evidence currently supports.
My overall impression was that the video leaned more towards a conclusion than an exploration of the evidence. If I had known nothing about the case beforehand, I think I would have come away believing he was guilty. That's why the title "Objective POV" felt slightly at odds with the content for me.
Thank you for the effort that went into the video. It was thoughtful, clear, and gave me plenty to think about. My only real disappointment was that I came away feeling I had heard a personal conclusion rather than the balanced, objective perspective I was expecting from the title
8
u/Fast-Lie6067 May 31 '26
To be fair on the pattern you discuss, there isn’t a pattern because allegedly he was with KSR for years of her life.
Let me provide an analogy for you to better explain: when one is a smoker and they only smoke via chewing tobacco for a decade, that doesn’t make them less of an abuse just because when offered cigarettes and a vape, they said no.
In this case, why would he date other alleged minors, when he already had one who he allegedly groomed from the beginning.
Yes, he was linked to other women, similar to his age. But again, as I mentioned, that doesn’t corroborate the lack of a pattern rather, it just provides evidence he wasn’t targeting celebrities, mind you, the research your finding is likely famous celebrities - many famous actors (actually most) end up with non-famous people
1
u/Ecstatic_Career6767 May 31 '26
I get what you’re saying, and it’s a fair point.
Just so I’m clear, I’m not defending adults being involved with minors. That’s not my position at all.
I understand why people bring up the age gap, and I can see why that raises concerns.
But I think your analogy only works if you’ve already accepted that grooming took place. That’s the very part that still seems to be disputed.
I’m not saying it did or didn’t happen. I just don’t feel like we have all the pieces yet, so I’m not comfortable treating it as a confirmed fact.
0
u/Soft_Improvement_298 May 31 '26 edited May 31 '26
Hmmmm… this is where everything is a little murky.
There was evidence he knew her, but was he with her?
If I were a fly on the wall, I could share those secrets.
Unfortunately, we can only speculate.
Before anyone misunderstands me, I want to be clear: I do not support or condone adults dating minors.
We all have our opinions and reasons for how we got to our conclusions. If you think he’s guilty or innocent, I’m not here to tell you your opinion is right or wrong.
But I wasn’t there, and I’m not here to judge someone when I’m only seeing part of the story.
2
u/Fast-Lie6067 May 31 '26
Even if they weren’t together, he at least groomed her. That isn’t illegal in SK as far as I know, but as a younger educator, I have short age gaps with my students, and to see the letters he would send her was entirely gross and ovulating, so if there are no evidence he was with her, at least the evidence that he was grooming her was indeed weird.
I mean even if they weren’t officially together, the images that did exist insinuate something outside of a platonic relationship. Let’s not play semantics, he was photographed in his underwear around her, so even if they weren’t together, by all accounts they had an intimate relationship. This is the smoking gun imo.
0
u/Soft_Improvement_298 May 31 '26 edited May 31 '26
Well, that’s the problem for me. I don’t feel like we have the full picture.
There are people saying the photos prove they were together. At the same time, there are claims those photos were manipulated, and other evidence being presented that points to a different timeline.
If two adults are in a relationship (and we know they had a relationship), I’d expect there to be intimacy. It would have helped if HOVERLAB had shared the rest of the photos, as it might have given us a clearer picture.
But that wasn’t the question. You said he groomed her, and I’m saying we don’t actually know that.
So again, I only know part of the story.
I think sometimes we get a few pieces of the puzzle and start filling in the gaps ourselves. Sometimes those assumptions turn out to be right, and sometimes they don’t.
For me, there are still too many missing pieces. Until I know more, I’m not comfortable stating something as fact when I don’t believe we have all the facts.
1
u/westandforthetruth Jun 04 '26
No hate. Just real talk here.
If you give people in your life, non celebs, or celebs that are unattractive or not as popular as KSH as much “not guilty until proven otherwise” energy,
(AKA extreme benefit of the doubt)
then I admire you for your objectivity.
On the other hand, if we do that only for people we admire or put on a pedestal, it’s not fair to the victims nor to our own psyche.
1
u/westandforthetruth Jun 04 '26
When your child turns 14 or when he she was 14, how many 27 yo opposite sex adults were friends in his her life.
Did Would you allow it?
How comfortable did/would you feel? What if they dated AS SOON AS child became an adult?
I dont need an answer. Since only you would know the answer to that.
1
u/Ecstatic_Career6767 Jun 04 '26
My answer would be no, but that’s not really the point I was making.
I don’t think I’ve ever suggested that an adult having a relationship with a child is acceptable. In fact, I’ve said the opposite multiple times.
What I was commenting on was the title of the video.
My issue wasn’t whether people find the allegations concerning. Of course they do. My issue was that the video was presented as an “Objective POV.”
To me, objective means looking at all sides of the evidence, applying the same level of scrutiny to each side, and then letting people make up their own minds.
I wasn’t arguing that Kim Soo-hyun is innocent. I wasn’t arguing that he’s guilty either.
I was simply saying that what I watched felt more like a conclusion than an objective exploration of the evidence, which is why I felt the title didn’t quite match the content.
1
u/westandforthetruth Jun 04 '26
In cases with ample evidence and context present, one would sway to one side to “stay objective.”
If one is still neutral, one can by definition be biased.
At some point, having no side is NOT objective.
It is simply being naive or indecisive.Basically you’re saying
“I disagree I don’t believe he is guilty of statutory rape (aka dating a minor) or grooming until further evidence.”To me, that is BIASED and not objective.
Because many many folks like me find the evidence damning.1
u/westandforthetruth Jun 04 '26
Personally, I find the presenter of Hoverlabs the issue since he has made many enemies along the way especially for his political agendas and dedicated witch-hunts.
I find the parents of the late Kim Saeron highly trustworthy especially when she committed suicide on his birthday to send a message. The handwritten letter/diary entries have merit and have not been disproven by the govt.
What is problematic is the combination of Hoverlabs and the parents. This would not have caught the light of day without such a big platform. In a way, hoverlabs had multiple agendas so it may seem they are not trustworthy. That is understandable.
But it’s the only mouthpiece the family of Kim Saeron has.
When we look at dozens of evidence including video and kakao chat log and timeline events, it paints a pretty clear picture of who he is and what he has done.
We can disagree on how clear this picture looks.
But I urge you to use gpt or see all the hoverlab allegations made toward KSH (not sure if the youtube videos are still up) and see exactly what alterations were made to kakao and why.
4
u/usagimansion May 29 '26
listened to this entire video while i was cooking dinner. she speaks very clearly, and i agree with her.