The FULL NewJeans vs HYBE story - Is tackling kpop's biggest company brave or career ending?

Newjeans are too popular for "career ending" to happen just cuz they terminated their contract with hybe.

NJ sacrificed themselves to take down the Empire and free kpop.

IU has survived three major controversies through out her career and knetz keep open their arms to her :

- take picture with half naked bg on the rise

- dating much older men

- pedo accusations

I guess it's not about what controversy you have but how you deal with controversy.

If NJ is maintaining their attitude like these, i believe they still have long career.

-they are not whinning

-they speak eloquently

-they are not playing symphathy

-they keep their profesionalism

-they are not afraid being hate for standing up

-they can sing

Even when you are not their muisc fans, how can you complain idols to having traits like these unless you are:

-jealous

-weak

-have submissive mentality

-coward

-and lowkey part of cult

The whole structure of Hybe is a mess. Sure, buy Source Music (they weren't doing much anyway), and create a GG under them, but they didn't need to buy Pledis and co-create Belift. If anything, they should've create a music distribution company (or bought YG Plus outright), and made agreements with other labels to help promote their groups better, under said company,.

It's stupid, but not necessary career endig even if I think it will hurt them and they would have benefited from avoided creating this mess from the start.

I think think some kind of deal with Hybe is the likely solution. It could end up in some kind of profit sharing deal, like they are allowed to create their own company but 30 % of the revenue should go to Hybe.

Taking on HYBE was necessary for them to have any career at all.

With Illit in play, if they didn't fight, then their career would have anyway be dungeoned by HYBE.

So if they have to stay relevant, it has to be only by fighting HYBE.

Even if they fail, it is the correct choice.

history is written by the victors and they will dictate the narrative when it eventually happens

Quote from selfmate

history is written by the victors and they will dictate the narrative when it eventually happens

A part of me disagrees with this. a few years ago, with information scarce and difficult to access, I can wholeheartedly agree.

Now information is available, albeit people will have to sift through misinformation using their critical thinking skills. People who are informed and have the skills can still make educated opinions on the situation at hand.

Thus, I think being a victor doesn't dictate wether you are right or wrong. The case of OJ simpson is an extreme example (he was acquitted and came out as the victor, but everyone believed otherwise and knew he was not innocent).

personally I think going against companies is always a brave move

I voted idk bc I'm curious about how the whole thing will play out

Quote from Irari

A part of me disagrees with this. a few years ago, with information scarce and difficult to access, I can wholeheartedly agree.

Now information is available, albeit people will have to sift through misinformation using their critical thinking skills. People who are informed and have the skills can still make educated opinions on the situation at hand.

Thus, I think being a victor doesn't dictate wether you are right or wrong. The case of OJ simpson is an extreme example (he was acquitted and came out as the victor, but everyone believed otherwise and knew he was not innocent).

but it doesn't matter what we think - you can apply all the critical thinking skills you want and come to a determination but ultimately in this case it will be the courts who decide the outcome

you said misinformation and yes whilst that is true - in a lot of situations information is unclear and uncertain but it might not be misinformation per se...

two people witnessing or partaking in the exact same conversation may have complete differing interpretations as to what was said

when it hits the courts - there are things alike whether such information is admissible at all or whether it is hearsay or the credibility of the witness just to name a few things - all that information gets challenged in court which we as ordinary citizens never see or hear.

I'm not saying a court or judge is perfect however it seems to be the best system that we have.

so ultimately if one side wins court then are we to say well hold on a second my analysis of the situation is completely different and I come to my own conclusions? I mean everybody is free to do that and make up their own minds

with respect to OJ Simpsons yes he is highly suspected of doing it but he was acquitted and with friends or in private we are allowed to say certain things but to my knowledge we can't say in public that he did it right?

It could be career ending. The longer this problem continues, the worse it gets. Teenagers move on quickly especially nowadays. And as someone who just turned 30, time goes by fast.

Imagine this whole saga lasts 3 years with the whole lawsuit and everything. They won't release new music during this period. They will likely have very little performances due to limitations. Perhaps the broadcasts don't want to get on hybe's bad side so they don't flatput blacklist, but they'll "choose" to have other groups on instead of newjeans. Day by day their popularity will fade and the teenagers will go into their 20s. Life comes at them hard at that age and they will have other things to think about.

Long story short, the kpop industry is a pretty ruthless business and you have to stay active and visible otherwise people move on quickly. I lived through the DBSK break-up and lawsuit so I understand very well how that goes.

Quote from selfmate

but it doesn't matter what we think - you can apply all the critical thinking skills you want and come to a determination but ultimately in this case it will be the courts who decide the outcome

What we think matters. If everyone fully relies on any authority figure without questioning or thinking, people will end up as sheeps. As for this case, personal and public opinions do matter.

Courts don't just take into account the evidence and what's presented before them, but they also take into account the consequences of deeming something right or wrong and whether person A or B is at fault.

The public's ideas can influence the opinion of the court. And the public's ideas is made out of collective opinions from individuals.

Quote

two people witnessing or partaking in the exact same conversation may have complete differing interpretations as to what was said

You're right, this can occur. But anyone who partakes in a conversation, especially in bussiness, 99% of the time consider the context of the conversation and cultural background. And any healthy and good conversation most likely have the participants asking questions and clarifying questions. The same goes for any contract.

Quote

when it hits the courts - there are things alike whether such information is admissible at all or whether it is hearsay or the credibility of the witness just to name a few things - all that information gets challenged in court which we as ordinary citizens never see or hear.

I'm not saying a court or judge is perfect however it seems to be the best system that we have

That is a barrier when it comes to information gathering. However, we as the public should still look at the data we have at hand to make our own decision. Perhaps there wasn't new evidence shown in court and evidence was thrown out despite it true but due to paperwork or improper filing, they can't use it. Are we going to say that the evidence doesn't exist and the public shouldn't examine it?

Courts and judges are the best system we have but the best is sometimes corrupt. Thus it's critical to form your own opinion despite what any person says.

Also with OJ Simpson, we can say things publicly. His case is discussed in college courses and a class can discuss opinions, concerns and flaws in the proceedings. People on the streets are allowed to discuss it. People can discuss it on Media as well. Unless you're in a society that doesn't allow the examination of authortiy figures and their decisions.

Quote from Irari

What we think matters. If everyone fully relies on any authority figure without questioning or thinking, people will end up as sheeps. As for this case, personal and public opinions do matter.

Courts don't just take into account the evidence and what's presented before them, but they also take into account the consequences of deeming something right or wrong and whether person A or B is at fault.

The public's ideas can influence the opinion of the court. And the public's ideas is made out of collective opinions from individuals.

You're right, this can occur. But anyone who partakes in a conversation, especially in bussiness, 99% of the time consider the context of the conversation and cultural background. And any healthy and good conversation most likely have the participants asking questions and clarifying questions. The same goes for any contract.

That is a barrier when it comes to information gathering. However, we as the public should still look at the data we have at hand to make our own decision. Perhaps there wasn't new evidence shown in court and evidence was thrown out despite it true but due to paperwork or improper filing, they can't use it. Are we going to say that the evidence doesn't exist and the public shouldn't examine it?

Courts and judges are the best system we have but the best is sometimes corrupt. Thus it's critical to form your own opinion despite what any person says.

Also with OJ Simpson, we can say things publicly. His case is discussed in college courses and a class can discuss opinions, concerns and flaws in the proceedings. People on the streets are allowed to discuss it. People can discuss it on Media as well. Unless you're in a society that doesn't allow the examination of authortiy figures and their decisions.

Display More

I'm not saying don't think for ourselves

of course we should think for ourselves

but the court is to take the law into account not the personal feelings of who's right and wrong - what is right and wrong don't matter as much as what the law determines is right or wrong (at least it is suppose to lol)

it shouldn't - the law should not take into account the public's perceptions of what the law is - a lot of times the law is contrary to what the public thinks however I think in SK it works a bit different but I'm not completely sure

absolutely which is why a court will have access to and lawyers challenge people's observations to determine whose statements re more trustworthy than others. Absolutely one's interpretation of a contract matters since they are a party to it however the words of a contract matter more and they are to be tested in a court of law should it ever end up there

yes there are a lot of technicalities in law but like I said it is the best system we have (notwithstanding it's corruptness)

forming one's opinions is very important but also not dismissing other's opinions for having an opinion different from one's own

I'm not from the US but obviously in most countries one is free to discuss the issues however one cannot say he is a murderer right?