It's not because you're a foreigner — the problem is simply that what you see from outside is only a fragment of the issue.

Look back at your original post.

And for the record, I was mostly making dark jokes.

This time, purely for your sake, I'll speak without any dark humor — just the facts:

Banning leaflets sent by North Korean activists — this issue has both pros and cons. These actions fundamentally create military tension for residents living near the border with North Korea. The Democratic Party side (pro-Sunshine Policy) naturally dislikes it. It's a conflict between personal convictions and national interests.

The more AI usage increases, the more it benefits the national economy? — Not exactly. South Korea is so favorable toward AI primarily because the country has many memory semiconductor companies. The government is simply shaping policy to ride that trend.

And my comment about exporting the censorship system if it succeeds — that was just a dark joke.

Legal attacks on journalists, non-transpartisan media regulations — these are problems that every administration has faced. And yet your original post only focused on the 'current' government, didn't it? Let's not twist what you said.

If you had written a comment saying something like 'South Korea transpartisanly regulates the media and has a national character that loves restricting freedom,' I would have upvoted you and praised you. But instead, you framed it as if only one administration behaves that way, while whitewashing others — and your tone was so assertive. That's the only reason I criticized you.

No one hates South Korea more than I do.

In that context, reading your post makes me ask back: 'So were the right-wing parties fine?' But that's not the case — it's just that censorship incidents happen under every administration.

If you had written something like, 'South Korea tries to censor under every administration, and the National Assembly is all in cahoots,' then naturally I would have said, 'Are you Korean? You seem to know Korean history very well.

To be honest, zuzululu, reading your posts, I can tell that you're someone who deeply respects individual human values. But that aside, when you criticize 'the left-wing regime,' other commenters besides me bring up things like martial law under previous administrations, don't they? And calling it a 'left-wing regime' doesn't even make sense — it contradicts what Korean political science associations have clearly stated. The Democratic Party of Korea is fundamentally a big-tent party oriented toward centrist conservatism.

So it's not 'you're a foreigner, so you wouldn't know.' Rather, I can't help but point out that the articles you have access to are biased. I also have some sense of why you're angry. If I made you feel bad, there are points where I could apologize — but I don't understand why you insist on framing this as a 'left-wing regime.'

People who obsess over 'left' and 'right' like this tend to attribute everything good to their own side and everything bad to the other side, and that diminishes the value of your thinking. The starting point of the problem with your post is precisely that what you call the 'left-wing regime' differs from how Korean political science associations define it.

South Korea has many problems: extreme concentration in the Seoul metro area, severe gender conflict, a society that treats anyone without a prestigious degree as a failure, absurd working hours, exploitation of young children, and a sharp drop in job quality outside the capital region, just to name a few.

You may define this as arrogance toward foreigners in general, but that's not it. It's simply that the claims you're making directly contradict what Korean academic associations have established.

Both parties only every get anything done in this country when it comes to voting to restrict our rights. Ideologically, I'm slightly right leaning. My primary value is individual rights are more important. But if I could, I would vote for Ron Wyden(D) despite the fact that I disagree with many of his positions, he's still one of the few that has a spine to oppose things like the federal spying apparatus.

I just don't see the point of investing myself in caring when 98 percent of our reps just really don't care and only focus on manufacturing outrage around wedge issues that they can't or won't actually address so that they can keep their jobs and continue to accrue massive amounts of wealth from lobbying and insider trading. We get Trump because the system is so thoroughly broken on both sides and enough people are frustrated the point that they are "protest" voting.