A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
Yoon cited a motion by the country's opposition Democratic Party, which has a majority in parliament, this week to impeach some of the country's top prosecutors and its rejection of a government budget proposal.
They declared martial law over a budget proposal??
My god they are so efficient. Whole thing lasted like 3 hours
Don't hold you breath...
From BBC:
The South Korean military says it will maintain martial law until it is lifted by President Yoon Suk Yeol, despite the nation's parliament voting to block its enforcement, according to the country's national broadcaster.
Yeah this is 100% a power grab. AFAIK there’s nothing going on right now in SK at a national level that could possibly justify the declaration of martial law countrywide.
So, the following is a genuine question and not a snide remark.
Does that matter? Is the military going to respect that? I'd heard prior to this that the military had forbade parliament from gathering. What's to say they don't just side with Yoon?Certainly wouldn't be the first time in history that a nation's military has dictated the corse of the nation's civil future. I really hate asking questions like this but I'm just not familiar enough with the politics of South Korea to know if this a done and dusted thing or if the military is likely to go for a coup if Yoon pitches it.
After Yoon's statement the military said activities by parliament and political parties would be banned, and that media and publishers would be under the control of the martial law command.
Yoon did not cite any specific threat from the nuclear-armed North, instead focusing on his domestic political opponents. It is the first time since 1980 that martial law has been declared in South Korea.
That's uh pretty explicit. Not quoted are two other key facts;
Y'all, those soldiers were not on board with this idea. And this is all vitally important because South Korea was a dictatorship for most of the cold war. This is absolutely an attempt to reinstate that.
How would that vote be held if the original Martial Law declaration banned Parliament from meeting? It seems like a gigantic loophole they need to close immediately before the president or a successor tries this again.
Yoon said he had no choice but to resort to such a measure in order to safeguard free and constitutional order, saying opposition parties have taken hostage of the parliamentary process to throw the country into a crisis.
Not very familiar with the political situation in Seoul, but saying your political opponents are supporting North Korea sounds like a pretty serious accusation.
On the one hand calling your opponents commies has been around since we had commies to compare them to, but on the other Russian influence is on the rise and surprisingly effective.
Is Martial law ever declared in a non-corrupt, power-grabbing way?
Canada invoked the Emergencies Act in 2022 when the national capital was occupied by a convoy of antivaxers who shut down the city for days. There was some debate as to whether it was necessary and there was an inquiry afterward. The main reason for invoking it was to allow the federal government to use law enforcement since the Ottawa municipal police mostly sat on its hands during the whole debacle.
Also in Canada, the War Measures Act was used during the FLQ Crisis in 1970. While some may disagree with using martial law, I don't think many would say it was used in a corrupt, power-grabbing way.
Occasionally in response to things like floods and other disasters. Though then it's usually local and short lived.
I think the only time martial law can be seen as reasonable is in an outright state of war. And even then, only when it's existential.
It's kind of inherently the antithesis of democratic values.
Yoon cited a motion by the country's opposition Democratic Party, which has a majority in parliament, this week to impeach some of the country's top prosecutors and its rejection of a government budget proposal.
Imagine declaring martial law, and these were the only concrete reasons you could come up with.
Who had south Korea becoming a fascist state?
Do I hear bingo from the back?
I'll be honest I had South Korean oligarch class does ridiculous cult shit and causes headlines. Does that count?
Who had south Korea becoming a fascist state?
I don't read or speak Korean but maybe the president ran on making South Korea ~~Great~~ Fascist Again? South Korea only democratized in 1987.
We really are in WW3 we just haven't noticed it fully yet.
We're nearly at the end of the" Lead up to World War Three" chapter.
"Rising economic and social tensions in the West" heading on wikipedia
I can't remember when I came to the realization, but for years now I thought that if (and I would love to hold on to the naive hope that it is an "if") WW3 breaks out then the battle lines would be drawn between the forces of autocracy and democracy. Those would be our sides.
Now, I'm not even sure democracy is gonna make it out the gate... America's elected a dictator who's aligned with Russia who is itself a major factor of this unholy autocratic alliance with China, North Korea, and Iran... Now this?
There were no "good guys" in world war 1. It was the result of squabbleing European powers not realizing the destructive potential modern military technology had and how much that changed the game. It needed to happen in the sense that countries couldn't continue to act the way they had prior to the great war, but that doesn't mean anyone was in the right.
It's hard to imagine "good guys" in world war 3 either. Increasingly, it kinda just seems like it's a choice between "what shit flavor of authoritarianism do you hate less?". Assuming that question even matters considered all the nuclear weapons that could fly in a third world war.
I dunno man, shit's just looking pretty fucking bleak.
Not a good look, and I have a hard time seeing the people of South Korea accept this and just rolling over. Ugh.
But the military seems to be going along with it, blocking out legislators (even from Yoon's own party).
And, uh, the precedent for that isn't good, even if a majority dont support it.
I'm sure this will just be a misunderstanding that will be cleared up in no time. Let me know when that happens.
... I'll be in my bunker.
Should.. we be alarmed by this?
Not just yet. It sounds like it's him against the rest of the government. Hopefully he can be removed swiftly.
It's not their first time descending into a dictatorship.
can't they have a no-confidence vote?
He’s using the military to block legislators from making any vote to end this
It's honestly insane that these sorts of technicalities are even possible to block the vote. "I called dictatorshipsies and you weren't in the parliament building when you clearly, overwhelmingly said 'no', so I guess no takesies backsies." There probably ought to be some sort of provision in Korean law going forward that if it isn't possible to enter the parliament building, they can hold the vote elsewhere.
Worth noting is that the unanimous vote includes members of the president's party (as far as I can see from skimming headlines. They're dropping fast...)