South Korea has beaten its own record once again. The country has registered a new low in its already faltering birth rate. The rate for 2023 was just 0.72. This is an unprecedented number in the global community (the average for OECD countries was 1.58 in 2021).
Just before reading this I read about the North South Korean Supreme Court jailing a conscientious objector to military service since he played violent video games and thus clearly adhered to the ideology of violence after all.
I completely understand the average Korean not wanting to throw innocent people into a system that... Let's just generally say they're "not optimal for human existence".
In that case you read only the clickbait headline. The actual reason was that he was unable to show he had ever shown a shred of interest in being anti war.
Perhaps I was exposed to a clickbaity title and didn't bother to read, but I seem to remember it differently. What do you think after reading the excerpt below?
However, in this case, the court noted that the defendant had never volunteered for any anti-war charities or protests. Perhaps more damningly, however, the court also pointed out that "the defendant admitted that he frequently enjoyed playing the game [PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds].
Despite acknowledging that PUBG takes place "in a virtual reality," the cut-throat nature and gun-related violence of the hit battle royale game was seen by the court to somewhat undermine the defendant's claim that they would be objecting on moral grounds: "The fact that the defendant [...] enjoys such [a] game makes the court question whether his conscientious objection is authentic."
The court made the decision based on the fact that he had never volunteered for any anti-war charities or protests, and he was unable to show any other proof he supported those causes. The PUBG issue was just a circumstantial contributing factor towards that overall argument, and not the main reason he was jailed. Had he been able to show his beliefs were sincere it would have been irrelevant. It's just being emphasised heavily because it gets clicks and attention.
That ruling (or law if that’s how it’s written) is some bs. That’s like saying that in order to prove that you don’t believe in beating up homeless people you have to provide evidence that you volunteer at a homeless shelter.