"You say you are a concientious objector but how do you explain all the violence you commit in this video game?"
this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2024
261 points (97.1% liked)
Not The Onion
11021 readers
448 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This seems incredibly stupid on its face. Someone please give me context that makes it make sense.
So, as far as I can see the ruling was that the guy hadn't sufficiently proved through his actions (e.g. protesting, joining any anti-war movements or in this case even expressing this view to anyone beforehand) that he was an actual conscientious objector and not just a chancer who didn't want to serve.
The fact that he played PUBG was brought up as part of the suggestion that he was just having a go but wasn't the whole case against him. Indeed tbh I can't really see anything suggesting it was a particularly important consideration compared to the lack of positive evidence of conscientious objection but obviously it's the bit that's going to get clicks.
Can't hold a moral stance without shouting it at everyone around you!
load more comments
(8 replies)
Honestly, the comments show who read the article and who didn't. It's really not hard to see that the court was looking for a history of conscientious objection and didn't find any proof, instead finding arguments to the contrary.
Hang on, because I'm morally opposed to war and violence, but I'm not out attending rallies or protests. While my arthritic old body isn't what anyone wants in battle, if I were healthy, and we had a draft, I'd be a conscientious objector with no history of activism.
Would South Korea put me in jail?
load more comments
(8 replies)
It is stupid. The man says he is .orally opposed to the military, but the courts rules that playing a computer game like PUBG makes that a lie.
load more comments
(2 replies)
south Korea is a fascist police state that will use stupid excuses to force men to die for the government.
South Korean government isn't exactly a bastion of democracy and sensibility. It's a fascist hell hole.
South Korea is considered a “full democracy” and ranks higher than the US on The Economist Democracy Index.
load more comments
(3 replies)
According to the article, the court argued that the guy refusing mandatory service for conscientious reasons enjoys playing violent games such as PUBG, calling the reasons given for abstaining from military service in question
Avoiding political opinions on South Korea, the court's claim would be that because he likes shooting guns at other people in games, his objection to military service has no ground to stand on.
"A paintball player? Clearly you must be a gung-ho militarist who loves war!"
"Have a BDSM kink? You go around kidnapping and torturing people, don't you?"
"So you like reading murder mysteries, huh? Seems like you're a murderer yourself, then!"
—Some South Korean judge, probably.
Which is fucking dumb beyond measure and logically, spiritually, and sensibly makes no fucking sense. Military service isn't a god damn video game
"I miss Call of Duty...."
"We are IN Call of Duty, and it SUCKS!"
By that logic, I should be their divine leader because I play RTS games.
One presumes that there is a certain standard in Korea to establish that you are a CO. Compelled military service makes it harder to avoid this. It seems that the Korean courts believe that liking violent video games means you're a violent person. It's a terrible ruling, but it frankly doesn't surprise me given the context.
We're finally imprisoning gamers 🙏
I always knew my sonic 3 play through would bring me here.
I can't believe this isn't the onion
Goddamn, the actual article is even more absurd than the title.
Man I can't wait to get charged with adultery when the court finds out how much porn I watch.
If you live in the United States, depending on the state, you might get your wish.
but a lower court dismissed this partially because he loves playing PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds. (emphasis mine)
I suspect that "partially" is working harder than John Henry in this sentance.
That's fucking stupid. They should be jailing him for playing a shitty game instead.
Thank the moronic mother's who clutch their pearls regarding "violent videogames". Modern psychiatry has concluded with finality that being violent, or even pro-violence, has nothing to do with videogames. But there are idiots who need to sell books to other idiots, because science denounces the notion.
The human brain registers a fake scenario and you suspend your disbelief. Juxtaposed with actual violence, with physical violence, gun violence, etc, they are not the same.
In the same vein, if anyone has watched a violent movie, they are then also pro-violence?
The answer is no.
The Supreme Court of Korea is a joke and just lost any credability it may have once had.
In my country, conscientious objectors can instead opt to work for charity for the duration of their service I believe. Much better solution than throwing service dodgers in jail. This also proves you're not doing it just to avoid service.
For an example I know someone who couldn't serve in the military for health reasons, but instead worked for the food bank for 8 months. The pay is shit, but for some people it's an option. And if you have a young child, you're exempt from service for a while anyway, it's only mandatory if you don't have significant provable responsibilities to other people. And I believe even then it's not mandatory in all cases.
view more: next ›