this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2024
54 points (98.2% liked)

No Stupid Questions

36187 readers
1040 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

From what I understand, the military high command supported Yoon even after the assembly voted down martial law. If that's true, didn't he have everything to go through with the coup?

top 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] odium@programming.dev 80 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

The high command might have been on Yoon's side, but the soldiers on the ground were not. The high command can't do shit if no one will follow their orders.

Soldiers were ordered to surround the Parliament and prevent a vote to end martial law. Yet the soldiers who were at the Parliament refused to fire upon or physically stop the politicians.

[–] PhrygianFudge@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Couldn't that have been just because of the immediate confusion and indecision about escalating by the lower unit commanders?

There could have been infighting in the military, but he surely would have had quite some support, no? Why not take the chance if he already commited to imposing martial law?

Edit: sorry if it came across like I support the guy. I don't. I'm just interested in sociology and politics. If you downvote me, could you explain what I'm getting wrong?

[–] ultranaut@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago

Infighting in the military is a significant escalation on the path towards a civil war. The chance for the coup to have any appearance of legitimacy was lost very quickly so it was either take that risk or back down. Ideally for a coup to succeed you have these details sorted and a plan in place to seize control before you start the coup, but that doesn't seem to be the case here so backing down was the only realistic choice.

[–] philpo@feddit.org 8 points 3 weeks ago

There are dozens of photos that most of the military unit who were active at the parliament did not have magazines in their guns and often had blue training guns in their holsters or blue training pins in their assault rifles.

This is nothing you do by accident - especially not in a highly qualified military like the SK military. It is a very good way of making sure that for starters none does something stupid like kill a MP, but also to show other units (and people) that you are not really on the side of whoever commanded you to do what you do. And it mak sure you look favorable in court if things turn against you.

Considering that this was not a singular occurrence but happened amongst all types of units someone has ordered them/coordinatated this.

How high up that was? Who knows. But it was a pretty strong sign, especially towards other units.

Who knows, in theory it could also be a valid scenario that the military was "faking support" to motivate Yoon,knowing that he will be impeached after that.

[–] Mango@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago

Score one for humanity!

[–] horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world 23 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Are you asking how Yoon could have had a better coup?

[–] PhrygianFudge@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I don't support him, if that's what you're asking. I'm just curious about sociology and politics. :)

[–] horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world 13 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It's absolutely too early to say what support he had or thought he had.

[–] PhrygianFudge@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

He didn't really know for sure, either, I don't think. That's why it's weird to me that he just 'surrendered'. Was what happened completely legal this way? Can he not go to prison?

[–] horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It's absolutely too early to say. The SK courts will bear this out. Anything you'd hear in this forum or the news is just conjecture.

[–] PhrygianFudge@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 weeks ago

True. I'm not taking any takes here to be definitely true. I was just interested in other people's perspectives until we get a proper response. :)

[–] massive_bereavement@fedia.io -1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I looked at the username. Just in case.

[–] PhrygianFudge@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Sorry, not that well-versed in the ecosystem here yet. What could my username have meant?

[–] massive_bereavement@fedia.io 9 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I meant just in case it was something like "Yoon_the_coon420" or something like that.

[–] PhrygianFudge@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Ah, I see. I thought there was a community of infamous South Korean conservatives or something.

edit: typo

[–] einkorn@feddit.org 16 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Imho no. Apparently (I have not dealt with South Korean politics before this) he was quite unpopular to beginn with. Blatantly disregarding the elected parlament would have destroyed any resemblance of a "lawful" takeover and might have provoked protest from all parts of society.

Also afaik saying he lifted martial law after the assembly vote is wrong in the sense that martial law was lifted by the assembly already. Pressing on would have put him in breach of the constitution. Of course he probably couldn't care less but keeping the appearance of still being a democracy is import. Most autocracy's nowadays work this way. People get to choose but the guy on top gets to pick the options.

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 12 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

People get to choose but the guy on top gets to pick the options.

Managed Democracy!

[–] A_Union_of_Kobolds@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

If the people voted by filling out Facebook quizzes

[–] IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Representative Democracy.

If Representative Democracy isn't democracy, then Switzerland is the only true democracy.

[–] systemglitch@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

I do struggle to feel that representative democracy is true democracy, because it usually struggles to represent what people really want.

In the age of computers we should be voting for everything as a collective.

Eh... maybe not. People can get tricked into voting for stupid policies. California literally voted in a proposition that classify "gig app" (like Uber or Doordash) workers as "Independent Contractors" rather than "Employees", because of a lot of propaganda.

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 weeks ago

Should we? At that point, the real decisions are made by those with the most charismatic performance.

What pure democracy assumes is that the competent decision will be more popular.

[–] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 3 weeks ago

Maybe he didn't? Power was on in parliament entire time, internet wasn't cut off, no curfew, no news stations takeover, you know things you can expect in a coup didn't happen

My Uneducated Assumption as a non- South Korean: (Correct me if I'm wrong)

He probably would've end up jailed anyways because there would be infighting within the military about whether to listen to the president or recognize the legislature that had just revoked martial law.

The supreme court would also side with the legislature and declare that the martial law was unlawful. (The supreme court also unanimously convicted a former president of impeachment)

2 Branches vs 1 person would make the president's order seem less legitimate.

There would also be mass protests and maybe even riots.

The president's approval rating is low. There would be a lot of protesters. It would be chaos.

I assume he just wanted to give up and hope for a lighter sentence.

[–] SomeAmateur@sh.itjust.works -1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Knowing nothing about anything it almost seems like the mindset of a person who survives a suicide attempt where they realize the gravity of their decision only after they make it