Parasite is really just a poorly defined value term for what we innately deal is the most morbid strategy of life. Carnivore, herbivore, parasite, omnivore, and sanguinivore(dunno actual term) are all really just sliding value terms viewd from a sliding perspective between pure selfishness and a golden rule standpoint.

You might say carnivores and herbivores exist!
The truth is virtually all herbivores are documented eating meat and even lions chew grass sometimes. then you say omnivore! But then we find that there are actually some animals that gain sustenance from minerals like worms that also get sustenance from animal and plant matter.

The truth is, "codification fallacy" is the definition of "subjectivity" and "enculturation" is the definition of "subjectively contagious subjective agnosia."

Parasitology is an imperfect branch of the study of living things. Why? Because when we consider those things which are, by definition, parasitic, we fail in our assessment by comparing them to others which are not. Apples, oranges, glass and broken windows, etc. Generally speaking, then, we think of mosquitoes as parasites when all they are doing is looking for lunch, uh, as repo man has noted, sanguinivores (or whatever is the actual term). Leeches are also, strictly speaking, parasitic blood suckers, but here again, they are just looking for food and are well-equipped to extract it from available sources. In the sociological sense, parasite, as applied to certain people or groups thereof, is a bit of a misnomer, but the best we can do without resorting to fouler language. So, we are used to referring to a variety of organisms, microorganisms and viruses as either parasites; pathogens or disease vectors because they can cause us to sicken and die. And since, by-and-large, they have no useful features, we write them off, figuring out better ways of protecting our selves and disposing of our vermin. When we do the same with parasitic humans, we have always already useful justifications for so doing.
Film makers are all over this when plying their craft. They know their viewing public is always ready to buy a thrill. Anti-heroes are better than no heroes at all.

Let me say this film is a load. Leslie's teaser is exactly that. Don't see this film unless you are ready for deep disturbing action, motive and thought. Therein you will find a clear window at the collision of sociological world views that is Korea.

It's stark that the US Gini coefficient is harsher than South Korea's if so far less than South Africa's. Something in that starkness tells me that income disparity is not the whole story here, if even the story at all.

I think instead it speaks to family, love, respect and desperation. My candidate for true parasite is Namsoong, but we are at a cultural cleft that I can't bridge with my limited Asian purview (and I grew up in Japan... once a gaijin always a gaijin.)

Kim's decision is the key to the whole thing. Ki-woo's tribulations are a pretense for his father's transformation. Where eastern confucianism meets disparate capitalist excess is the backdrop. To take this movie in the window of income disparity is a Maoist take not supported by the plot, action or characters. That is not to say income disparity doesn't contribute to the story or isn't a problem.

The social parasite here by design is Park. That he can't formulate his love for his wife, tells Kim to do his job prior to the Indian raid and continually talks about line crossing delineates his parasitic nature, but as I said before ... parasite has an eastern and communist meaning that I can't quite find in my psyche.

Good film... can't recommend it to those who can't take gruesome detail.

Confucius over Mao every time when talking about anything Asian.

Well, I did not say PEOPLE were vermin---somehow you read that into my prose, or did you? Your question sounds like you did. Sorry my meaning was muddy or not well-taken. I do try to keep things as brief as possible, but words are difficult to manage sometimes.. Let me give another example. I have thought that Utilitarianism and Pragmatism are akin to one another. Pragmatists are (allegedly) interested in things which are more useful, rather than less (Rorty). Utilitarianism, as a term, implies that a thing (or a class of things) has 'utility' or is therefore, useful. Now, it seems Jeremy Bentham was considered the Father of Utilitarianism, although it is now pretty difficult to find his writing, while it is much easier to find those who have written about him. It is also said that his writing was difficult to understand and that this is one reason why he is not commonly read. I do not know right now because I have only been able to read those things others have written about him. The upshot of all this is that the Father of Utilitarianism: a. did not know what he was talking about, or, b. could not express it, or c. both. So, as you know, words may be misunderstood or misinterpreted, whether spoken or written. This makes philosophy difficult. Especially when terms are not well-defined and/or their meanings not well-agreed upon. I don't expect this clears anything up. But, if it helps, I can say I tried. Merry Christmas!