Lily Phillips' Disturbing "100 Guys" Scandal Has Divided The Internet, "HOT ONES" SOLD for $82.5M
PDS Published 12/13/2024
-
What happens when you sleep with 100 men in a day?
That is a question driving a ton of discourse online after OnlyFans star Lily Phillips did just that, and Josh Pieters shared a documentary about it.
And there is a lot people are talking about here, so we’ll start with showing some of that documentary for context, right.
It starts with Lily talking about starting her OnlyFans career, saying it is something she loves to do, and seemingly being excited to take on this 100 guys challenge.
“I’ve just always had, quite like a sexual nature.” (2:34-2:36)
“As soon as I started on the platform, I guess I realized how much money you can make and also just how much I loved it.” (2:49-2:59)
“I think other people in the industry look down on me for doing this, but I think at the end of the day, people also forget that it is my fantasy, and that this is something I’m really enjoying and wanting to do and have wanted to do before I was even in the industry.” (15:53-16:07)
Saying she is not in this industry because she had no other choice, and that she feels empowered making money off of the idea that guys sexualize her, because she feels men sexualize her no matter what.
Showing her setup, how comfortable she is being filmed doing sexual acts.
But even though she said many times that she likes her OnlyFans career in general and is looking forward to sleeping with 100 guys, Josh kind of questioned some of it, and had a lot of concerns.
Right, when the applications opened for men to apply to sleep with her, it was like floodgates opening, people from all around the world flying in to do this.
But it seemed there would be no criminal record check on them, and while Lily said they were “prioritizing” men who had STI checks, it seemed they were not going to any lengths to verify this or know for sure all men were STI-free.
There was also a moment where she seemed unsure of some of the risks:
“So you would let these guys do that on your face?...yeah, yeah…and in your mouth?...yeah, yeah…What if they have HIV?...Is that where it comes from? Spunk in the mouth?...It can.” (25:33-25:45)
Though, it is worth noting that while it is possible to catch HIV orally, the risk is much lower than other kinds of intercourse. []
But the point still stood that Josh was afraid she was unprepared for what she was getting into and who these 100 men could be:
“I mean, there’s a decent chance one of them could be dangerous, one of them might have a weapon, a criminal record. A few of them will have STIs, just on a basic statistic you can know that a few of them will have STIs.” (24:16-24:28)
She also seemed to be putting a lot of pressure on herself, saying the thing she was most nervous about was that all 100 guys might not enjoy it, and she wanted all 100 to view it positively.
And by the time the day came, things did go wrong, they were running late off the bat, she was unable to take as many breaks as she intended to, and the day ran way longer than she anticipated.
For some context on time, each guy was given five minutes, but many went over, so that alone puts you at well over eight hours, plus she had to take breaks to shower.
It also seemed not all the men followed the rules.
Right, some went past their time slot, and she alluded to feeling pressured into letting them.
She also told the men they could not ejaculate into her eyes, but they did anyway, even if it may have been accidental, which caused pain in her eyes.
But the most viral part of the documentary was the aftermath, where she discussed how intense it all felt:
“It’s not for the weak girls, if I’m honest. It was hard. I don’t know if I would recommend it. (43:00-43:08)
“I don’t know how to explain it, like…it’s not like just having sex with someone?...yeah, yeah, just one in one out, like it feels intense…like more intense than you thought it might?...definitely (wipes tear) sorry, just, one minute? (walks away crying) (43:22-43:45)
“The awkward interaction of like, you feeling pressure to have to make them cum if you haven't spent enough time with them and feeling like you didn’t give them a good time.” (44:19-44:29)
“Sometimes you’d just disassociate, it’s not like normal sex at all.” (45:08-45:13)
And she may not have been the only one shaken up by this experience, the documentary also showed a guy barely able to hold and sip from a water bottle after sleeping with her.
But her team seemed pretty supportive in the aftermath, saying she “took it like a champ.”
Online, however, the responses are a lot more complicated, some really hating Lily for doing this at all, saying she makes them ashamed to be a woman.[]
That they have no sympathy for her, they think she is disgusting, [][][][]
But then others feeling sorry for her, thinking she is dealing with more than she lets on, that she is unwell or unhappy, saying:[][][][]
“she didnt think this through at all…this has to be some sort of selfharm.”
“no sane, right-minded woman would have done what she did and you guys aren’t concerned for her at all? for her mental health? her well-being?”[]
Others using this as a wider condemnation of OnlyFans and the porn industry as a whole, saying watching and creating this kind of content is actively harming people, adding:[][]
“Hating on Lily Philips is like hating symptoms of a virus but not hating the virus itself. The sex industry is abusive and manipulative and what is dressed up as empowerment is actually subjugation and disempowerment.”[]
“this actress is just one of the many victims of this industry even if she willingly participated.”[]
Right, thinking the industry has gone too far, and in that note, in the doc, Josh did speak to a different OnlyFans creator who noted that people do keep pushing the envelope further and further, even if it is to their own detriment:
“People are starting to do the most outrageous things online.” (22:07-22:12)
“It just keeps getting leveled up and up and up of the expectations.” (22:23-22:27)
Some saying that even though this was Lily's decision, she was still sexually assaulted by these men because some violated her rules and boundaries.[][]
Some people really mad at her team for having her go through with this with such little protections.[][]
Others more disgusted with the men who slept with Lily than Lily herself, and some arguing that it is men like them that create larger problems, saying:[][]
“It’s funny how men are quick to shame women in the sex industry, but refuse to acknowledge their role in keeping it alive. This documentary about Lily Phillips is a perfect example.”[]
But others thinking this whole situation is not as big a deal as it is being made out to be, that this is one woman who made a choice, even if that choice is very questionable, saying:[][]
“why is the internet making it seem like this is just some gal who got in over her head on onlyfans, she is a porn star who makes porn…everyone made the crying at the end sound intense but it really is that she's tired and upset that it didn't go as smoothly as she wanted vs ‘the devastating toll this has on her.’”
Some kind of in the middle, saying:
“lily philips is a grown woman who was aware of the consequences of it all and consented for it. she’s most certainly not a victim but i cant help but feel bad. physically and mentally she surely cant be ok. the dissociation?”[]
But no matter all the reactions here, what people think of her and how this situation made her feel, it does not seem Lily plans on stopping.
In fact, she announced that in February, she is going to try to sleep with one thousand men in a day in an attempt to break a world record.[]
So the discourse will likely continue, but for now, I would love to know your thoughts on any of this.
-
After weeks of headlines, public fixation, and even her father’s suicide, Hannah Kobayashi has been found safe and sound!
Right, we talked a bit about Hannah last week - she’s a 30 year old woman from Hawaii that went missing after she missed a connecting flight in LA to New York last month. []
There were some concerning messages to her family after she missed her flight - including saying that someone had wiped her identity and she had been scammed out of all her money. []
And then she was gone and the news of her disappearance spread like wildfire online.
Especially after her father, Ryan Kobayashi, was found dead after he traveled to LA to look for her. []
With the Los Angeles County Medical Examiner ruling his death a suicide.
There were private investigators jumping on the case, Hannah’s name became a popular hashtag, and there was even a Reddit page dedicated to finding her.
But then, last week, the LAPD classified Hannah as a voluntary missing person - saying that video from the US-Mexico border shows her leaving the country alone. []
Now, at the time, there was some pushback to the LAPD’s decision - with Hannah’s family promising to continue looking for her. []
Which brings us to yesterday when her family’s attorney shared a statement saying that Hannah had been found, saying,
“We are incredibly relieved and grateful that Hannah has been found safe. This past month has been an unimaginable ordeal for our family, and we kindly ask for privacy as we take the time to heal and process everything we have been through. We want to express our heartfelt thanks to everyone who supported us during this difficult time. Your kindness and concern have meant the world to us.”
But while everyone is relieved that she’s been found and that she’s safe, there’s still a lot of unanswered questions.
For one, we don’t know when or where she was found. []
But the probably the biggest question is why? Why did this happen?
And to that, there have been countless theories.
But the one that’s probably gotten the most attention is this idea of a green card marriage scheme.
With reporting from Los Angeles Magazine citing sources saying that Hannah was apparently scammed out of the proceeds of an immigration marriage scheme, possibly concocted by her ex who was on the same flight out of Maui as Hannah. []
With the magazine going on to say she married an Argentinian man named Alan Cacace (Ka-ka-say) - whose girlfriend married Hannah’s ex for similar reasons.
Los Angeles Magazine adds that their sources say that this whole scheme was uncovered by Hannah’s mother - who reportedly found immigration documents in Hannah’s house back in Hawaii. []
And this idea of a green card marriage scheme was echoed around other outlets - with the Daily Mail reporting that Hannah’s co-workers knew about it and that they were shown pictures of Hannah and Alan’s ceremony. []
Going on to report that Alan gave Hannah $15,000 when they got married and promised a similar amount when his immigration documentation came through. []
Then the New York Post also reported talking to Hannah’s coworkers regarding her alleged immigration scheme. []
But despite all that, the family says that they don’t have any facts or information to confirm that any of this is true.
Saying in a statement before Hannah was found that this theory was one of many different leads they were investigating and that any information they had was turned over to law enforcement. []
Adding,
“...we kindly ask everyone to avoid jumping to conclusions or spreading unverified claims.” []
For now, that’s where we’re at - we’re just going to have to wait and see what information comes out from here.
And whether we hear from Hannah herself about what actually happened.
In the meantime, let me know your thoughts about this in those comments down below.
-
Buzzfeed will live to see another day and it’s all thanks to “Hot Ones.”
Or rather the sale of “Hot Ones.”
Right, today Buzzfeed announced that they sold First We Feast, the studio that gave us the popular hot sauce/chicken wing/celebrity interview combo that is “Hot Ones.” [B Roll 3:50-4:10]
And this sale comes with a whopping $82.5 million price tag. []
Which was paid by a group of investors including an affiliate of Soros Fund Management, First We Feast’s founder Chris Schonberger, the host of “Hot Ones” Sean Evans, and Rhett and Link’s media company, Mythical Entertainment. []
Now, that isn’t everyone who invested - there are more names that will reportedly be dropped at a later date. []
But what we know now is that First We Feast is going to be operating as an independent multiplatform media company.
With Schonberger, who’s the new CEO, saying,
"With new investment, we’re poised to expand into exciting new areas — including new platforms, live events, and talent acquisition — cementing First We Feast as the ultimate destination for pop culture–obsessed audiences.” []
And Sean Evans, who will continue hosting the show and will also be the new chief creative officer, saying,
“The future is spicy, and I can’t wait to see what’s next.” []
Now, this deal pulls Buzzfeed out of some hot water - allowing it to pay down tens of millions of dollars in debt that was coming due this month.
They’re reportedly planning on paying $88.8 million of their $124 million in debt using the proceeds from this sale. []
Which will reportedly put them in a much better position then they have been in - with more cash on the books than debt.
And as for what Buzzfeed is going to look like from here, they have reportedly told investors that as they pull back from original content, they’re focusing more on using AI to make and deliver content to their users. []
With Buzzfeed’s founder and CEO saying,
“In the coming years, we will continue to invest in our most scalable and tech enabled services, launching new AI-powered interactive experiences, and delivering for our loyal audience and business partners.” []
So we’re just going to have to keep our eyes on this.
But let me know your thoughts about this in those comments down below.
Go to Ozlo or use my code PHILD and get $10 off Ozlo sleep buds to get the best sleep of your life!
-
Is there an organized crime group targeting some of the biggest professional athletes in America?
That is a very real question that the FBI is apparently now investigating, according to multiple reports.
Right, since September, local police departments have reported a string of burglaries at the homes of NBA and NFL players in Kansas, Missouri, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Ohio.
And this is something that is ongoing — literally just this week, there was a break-in and robbery at the Ohio home of Cincinnati Bengals quarterback Joe Burrow while he was playing a “Monday Night Football” game against the Dallas Cowboys in Texas.
And this has also affected some of the most famous names in the game.
Right, back in October, the homes of Kansas City Chiefs players Patrick Mahomes and Travis Kelce were robbed just one day apart.
With police reporting that Kelce’s losses included $20,000 in cash.
And those weren’t the only back-to-back burglaries.
In September, two players on the Minnesota Timberwolves were also hit a day apart, with burglars stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of property from one and $100,000 worth from the other.
But some players have lost even more financially.
Last month, a group of at least three men broke into the home of Milwaukee Bucks forward Bobby Portis while he was playing a game and stole more than $1 million worth of items from his bedroom.
Now, as to the identity of the people or groups behind these break-ins, the NBA provided some information in a memo last month that was obtained by The New York Times.
And there, the league said that the FBI had “connected many of the home burglaries to transnational South American Theft Groups” — also known as SATGs.
With the memo saying that the groups tend to go after cash and “items that can be resold on the black market, such as jewelry, watches, and luxury bags.”
And adding that, in most cases, it appeared that the burglaries happened when the athletes homes’ were not occupied — mostly on game days — and during times when alarm systems were not activated.
Noting that the burglars mostly entered through back windows or sliding doors.
And as far as how they have been able to target these famous athletes, according to the memo, the FBI said that these SATGs are:
“well-organized, sophisticated rings that incorporate advanced techniques and technologies, including pre-surveillance, drones, and signal jamming devices.”
Adding that they also may be gathering intel from social media and public records.
With ABC News also separately reporting that some of these organized groups:
“have conducted extensive surveillance on targets, including attempted home deliveries and posing as grounds maintenance or joggers in the neighborhood.”
Right, and with this, both the NFL and NBA have reportedly put out security alerts to their teams warning them to stay vigilant and make sure their security systems are turned on.
With players also being warned to avoid updating social media daily, posting check-ins, or sharing content of expensive items on their accounts.
-
Biden just announced that he is granting clemency to nearly 1,500 Americans — the most that any president has EVER done in a single day.
And that breaks the record by a LOT — before this, the single-day record went to Obama, who granted 330 people clemency at the end of his last term in 2017.
Right, in a fact sheet announcing the move, the White House said that, of the 1,500, most are people who had been put on home confinement during the pandemic and:
“have successfully reintegrated into their families and communities.”
With this coming as some of the Republicans who will be taking control of Congress next month have pushed legislation that would force those folks to return to prison.
Now, very notable here, Biden is not pardoning most of those people — he’s just commuting their sentences, which is different.
Right, while a pardon totally erases a conviction, a commutation doesn’t change the guilty verdict or exonerate the crime — it just reduces some of the punishment.
And while commutations make up the vast majority of the clemency here, Biden did also grant pardons to 39 people who were convicted of non-violent crimes.
With the fact sheet noting that the people who granted clemency today include non-violent offenders:
“who were sentenced under outdated laws, policies, and practices that left them with longer sentences than if the individuals were sentenced today.”
But, in addition to breaking the record for single-day clemency, this represents a big shift for Biden too.
Right, until now, he had reportedly issued just 26 pardons and commuted sentences for around 140 people.
This notably including military vets convicted of having gay sex, which used to be a crime under military law.
With Biden also becoming the first person to pardon people with federal marijuana convictions.
But, of course, this also comes as his acts of clemency have come under fire more recently after he pardoned his son Hunter despite vowing for years that he wouldn’t.
A move that has gotten a ton of backlash from both sides of the aisle.
And, very significantly here, the fact sheet also explicitly said that Biden would be reviewing and granting more clemency requests in the weeks to come.
And it’ll be really interesting to watch what he does there, especially because there has been growing pressure for him to commute the sentences of people on federal death row.
Right, federal executions have been paused under Biden, who notably also failed to fulfill his campaign promise of ending the death penalty.
But capital punishment is all but certain to resume under Trump, who restarted federal capital punishments for the first time in two decades during his first term and oversaw an unprecedented number of executions.
Beyond that, it’s also been reported that Biden’s team is considering the possibility of granting preemptive clemency for people who could be targeted by Trump’s repeated vow to punish his perceived political enemies.
With this including Dr. Fauci, Senator elect Adam Schiff — who led the first impeachment effort against Trump — and former congresswoman Liz Cheney, who has arguably been the number one GOP critic of Trump.
But for now, we’ll just have to wait and see what Biden does here.
-
We gotta talk about this $895 billion defense bill just passed by the House.
Except this story isn’t gonna be about defense, or national security, or military spending.
It’s about how this defense bill has become another battleground in the fight (1, 2) over transgender issues.
And with that, we’re even gonna go beyond the US and take a look at recent news from the UK to see how this debate compares on both sides of the pond.
But that said, let’s start with what’s in this bill that you might normally expect to be in a piece of defense policy legislation.
Right, for example, there’s considerable pay raises for enlisted and other service members; []
There’s $3 billion for improving military housing; []
And there’s money for an initiative meant to bolster Taiwan’s defensive capabilities;[]
There’s also controversial measures like increased military assistance at the US-Mexico border and the expansion of aid to Israel. []
But what almost killed this bill? It’s not any of those, it’s a provision denying coverage for transgender health care for the children of service members.
Specifically, this provision would keep the military’s health care plan from covering, quote, “medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria that could result in sterilization” for children under 18.[]
And with that, a key thing, some argue that Republicans have portrayed almost all gender-affirming care — which could but doesn’t necessarily include hormone therapy — as possibly leading to sterilization –
Which is something medical professionals say doesn’t happen in most cases.[]
And with that, in a tweet, for example, Mike Johnson himself has described the provision as a ban on transgender treatment in general. []
With Democrats saying the language in the bill might be used to deny minors treatments to deal with the anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation that many transgender children experience.[]
Adam Smith of Washington, for example, saying the provision, quote, “taints an otherwise excellent piece of legislation.” []
Also saying:
“Blanketly denying health care to people who need it—just because of a biased notion against transgender people—is wrong.”
“This inclusion of this harmful provision puts the lives of children at risk and may force thousands of service members to make the choice of continuing their military service or leaving to ensure their child can get the health care they need.”[]
And notably, there, you also have Smith expressing openness to debate, saying:
“There is a reasonable question about what care minors should receive in this area.”
But claiming that Republican leadership rejected Democrats’ offer to study the issue and look to the expertise of medical professionals.
Instead, saying they insisted on “an outright ban” because of their “ignorant, bigoted” views about transgender people.[]
But with that, Republicans originally pressed for a far more expansive ban, seeking to deny gender-affirming treatment for anyone covered under the military’s insurance plan.
Notably, Democrats also talked them out of provisions limiting access to abortion services and restricting the Pentagon’s DEI programs.[]
While Republicans, on the other hand, insisted on dropping a provision to expand access to IVF in the military.
Currently, it’s only available to service members if their infertility issues were caused by illnesses or injuries sustained while on active duty.
But some lawmakers wanted coverage for IVF treatments regardless of why they were needed.[]
And with that, all of this is a big change from years past, when Republicans and Democrats tried to keep contentious social issues out of the defense bill altogether.
Though, in the end, the bill passed the house easily, with 81 Democrats and 200 Republicans voting in favor.[]
And now, the Senate is expected to take up and pass the measure in the coming days.
And of course, as this is happening, there’s battles taking place at the state level.
Right, just this week, for instance, Montana’s supreme court, temporarily blocking a state ban on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors.
And with that, Montana is just one of roughly two dozen states that have introduced bans on gender-affirming medical care for minors.
With the Supreme Court now weighing the constitutionality of a Tennessee ban on gender-affirming care for minors.
And notably, while a decision is not expected for several months, the court’s conservative majority reportedly seemed inclined to uphold the ban.
Also notably, Republican politicians have cited the restriction of gender-affirming care in Europe, including the UK, to justify laws against youth gender medicine.
But the European policies are notably different from the outright bans passed in U.S. states, some of which threaten doctors with prison time or investigate parents for child abuse.
Right, the few European countries with restrictions still allow gender treatments for certain adolescents and are requiring new clinical trials to study and better understand their effects.[]
And specifically, the focus has been on biomedical treatments like hormonal therapies and puberty blockers.
With a key thing being that gender-affirming care encompasses a range of social, psychological, behavioral, and medical interventions, such as counseling.
And that brings us to today’s news from the UK.
Right, the country is indefinitely banning new prescriptions of puberty blockers to treat minors for gender dysphoria.
And this actually goes back to last spring, when the National Health Service, or NHS, stopped prescribing puberty blockers as “routine treatment” to children and young people with gender dysphoria back in March.
With that decision making it the fifth European country to limit the medications because of a lack of evidence of their benefits and concern about long-term harms.[]
Around the same time, an independent NHS-commissioned study found that the medical evidence around transition-related care for minors was “remarkably weak” and that more research was needed. []
With this leading to May, when the then-Conservative government temporarily banned the private prescription of puberty blockers as well - a decision upheld by the country’s high court over the summer.
And now, the new Labour party government is basically extending the ban until more evidence is unavailable.
With Health and Social Care Secretary Wes Streeting saying:
“Children’s healthcare must always be evidence-led.”
“The independent expert Commission on Human Medicines found that the current prescribing and care pathway for gender dysphoria and incongruence presents an unacceptable safety risk for children and young people.” []
Notably, with Streeting also saying decisions were being taken “based on the evidence and advice of clinicians, not politics or political pressure.” []
Adding:
“I know it won’t feel like it based on the decisions I’m taking today, but I really do care about this and so does this government. I am determined to improve the quality of care and access to healthcare for all trans people.” []
And finally, speaking from his experience as a gay man, saying:
“I can’t pretend to know what that’s like, but I do know what it’s like to feel you have to bury a secret about yourself, to be afraid of who you are, to be bullied for it and then to experience the liberating experience of coming out.” []
And with all that, big thing, the government is actually taking steps to collect the evidence it says is lacking.
Right, there are plans to set up a clinical trial into the use of puberty blockers next year and to recruit the first patients by spring.
With Streeting saying the study would help “establish a clear evidence base for the use of this medicine.”[]
And with that, the ban will reportedly be revisited in 2027.[]
In the meantime, an important thing to note is that trangender youth already taking the medication can continue doing so.
And minors who experience puberty at an abnormally early age will still be able to receive new prescriptions for the medication. []
Though, of course, there’s still concern that there are kids who could benefit from the treatment and now won’t be able to get it.
For example, more than 6,000 children and young people are reportedly on waiting lists for gender services in the UK[]
And so, transgender activists around the world have still condemned the UK ban.
With the head of one UK-based group, for example, saying:
“The government is entirely disregarding the voices of trans youth, who made clear their deep opposition to the restriction of private prescriptions for puberty blockers during consultation.” []
And at the end of the day, even the medical establishment is divided.
Right, in the US, where bans have been way more aggressive, the American Academy of Pediatrics has actually been way more vocal in endorsing youth gender-affirming care, including hormonal treatments.
But then, its European counterpoint has more openly acknowledged the concerns, writing in February, for example:
“The fundamental question of whether biomedical treatments for gender dysphoria are effective remains contested.” []
And with that, I gotta pass the question off to you.
Especially, if you have personal experience with anything like this, if you’re from the UK or another European country where this is a conversation, what are your thoughts?
Just in general, or if it’s about how this issue varies from country to country?
Go to UPLIFT DESK and use code PHIL to check out their holiday gift guide and make the most of UPLIFT’s holiday sales.
-
Aaaand of course we have another update from South Korea, but this time it’s quick.
Remember how yesterday I said that the ruling party saved President Yoon’s ass from an impeachment?
Well, looks like they’ve decided to flip with the head of the PPP telling members that the party would officially support an impeachment, albeit members could vote based on their “belief and conscience.”
In a statement, the party leader said that “We tried to find a better way than impeachment, but that other way is invalid.”
“Suspending the president from his duties through impeachment is the only way for now, to defend democracy and the republic.”
The “other way” he’s referring to seems to be a hope that there would be enough pressure Yoon to resign.|[]
But he resisted all those calls and actually had a spee ch yesterday where he was defiant and justified his call for martial law, saying that the opposition are still North Korean sympathisers and that:
“The opposition is now doing a knife dance of chaos, claiming that the declaration of martial law constitutes an act of rebellion.” @0:00-:10
He went on to say they are the ones causing problems by making him a lame-duck president and adding. [read]
“I don’t know which country the party belongs to and which country the National Assembly belongs to.”
He also added that he didn’t mean to stop the National Assembly from doing their duties -- despite the fact that’s explicitly what martial law does in South Korea, saying: [read]
“If I were to paralyze the functions of the National Assembly, I would’ve enforced martial law on the weekend, not on a weekday.”
“And cut power and water at the parliament building first, and restrict broadcasting. But I didn’t do any of that.”
That just sounds like he did a bad job at implementing martial law.
Regardless, with the PPP allowing members to impeach Yoon and even the party’s leader behind the move it’s VERY likely that Yoon will lose his power relatively soon as the Democrats are already drawing up another article of impeachment as I speak.[]
So hopefully the next update on this is “Democracy is saved!” and life can return to normal… for Koreans at least.
We’ll probably have years of craziness in other parts of the world.
-
233,597 people were wiped off the face of the Earth by violent conflicts in 2024.
That’s up from 180,000 last year, a 30% leap in global deaths. [Quote, find “233,597”]
With the most happening in Ukraine, followed by Palestine, and then a long list of other countries including Myanmar, Lebanon, Sudan, Yemen, Mexico, Syria and Haiti.
This coming from the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data, or ACLED, a group that tracks this kind of stuff.
Because they just published a report showing that the level of conflict in the world has doubled over the past five years.
With 2020 seeing just over 100,000 recorded conflict events, and this year witnessing nearly 200,000. [Quote, find “doubled”]
That according to the risk analysis firm Verisk Maplecroft,
The proportion of the world engulfed by conflict has grown 65% – equivalent to nearly double the size of India – over the past three years. [Quote, first line]
But while all these numbers give us a sense of the quantitative scale of violence around the world, they tend to flatten the qualitative differences between conflicts.
So for example, bombing campaigns in the Middle East, mob violence in India, cartel civil wars in Mexico, Islamic militancy in the African Sahel [Pronounce 00:12], attacks on shipping in the Red Sea, trench warfare in Ukraine, and the humanitarian crisis in Sudan are all very different phenomena. [Quote, find “Wagner”]
Yet there are also certain trends that prove generally true across the board.
Like for example, violence becoming more urbanized and tightly concentrated, hitting the same locations over and over again. [Quote, find “urbanized”]
Which is particularly bad for civilians, and sure enough, we’ve seen more of them get sucked into the vortex.
Right, ACLED found that this year, one in 8 people worldwide were exposed to conflict, meaning they lived within five kilometers or less of it. [Quote same link, find “one in eight”]
With Palestinians, 81% of whom were exposed to conflict, facing the highest level of violence in the world. [Same quote]
So if we step back and look at all the conflict zones in historical perspective, we get a really grim picture.
Right, back in the summer, the Institute for Economics and Peace identified a total of 56 active conflicts around the globe. [Quote, find “56”]
Which very notably is the highest number reached since the end of World War II. [Same quote]
So that gives you an idea of where we’re at right now, but it’s still up for debate how to interpret these trends.
Right, one perspective is that the world may be entering a “new normal” of conflict, as international relations scholar Paul Poast [Post] put it to The Washington Post. [Quote and Screenshot, 01:30]
And ACLED certainly thinks the violence is only going to get worse next year.
With it predicting that conflict event rates will grow by 15% at the beginning, and likely 20% by the end of 2025. [Quote, find “15%” and “20%”]
And the group’s founder pointing to “possible violent surges” in Iran, Chad, Ecuador and Pakistan. [Quote, and screenshot, 00:46]
Though of course the big wildcard that could throw everyone for a loop is Taiwan.
But another perspective is that we’ve already reached the peak, or are very close to it, and there are reasons to believe some of the current wars will start to wind down soon.
Like the one in Ukraine, for example, especially with Donald Trump in the White House.
Though ACLED disagrees with that, writing that despite the loss of Western support,
“Russia’s maximal demands and Ukraine’s existential dilemma mean that negotiation terms will be extremely difficult to reconcile. Conflict is very likely to continue at present or even higher levels.” [Quote]
But what about the Middle East? Could we see things cooling down over there?
Well, obviously the war in Gaza has expanded into Lebanon and the Red Sea, not to mention Israel’s latest incursions into Syrian territory.
But at the same time, the fall of the Assad regime and the crippling of Hezbollah suggest the strategic balance of power may be tilting away from Iran and toward Israel. [Quote, find “strategic balance”]
Which may or may not bode well for regional stability; that’s a question for future historians.
But then, another perspective is that regardless of the trends, 2024 was an outlier for one surprisingly simple reason.
Roughly 80 countries home to more than half the world’s population held national elections this year. [Quote, find “80”]
And so the argument goes that when power is up for grabs, incumbent governments feel insecure, and opposition groups spot an opportunity.
So both sides pick up arms and mobilize their supporters, either to hold on to power or to seize it.
And according to ACLED, the data seems to back this theory up.
Right, countries with elections this year saw a 63% increase in national political violence, compared to just over 21% increases for countries without elections. [Quote same link, find “63”]
So the simple fact that so many places happened to have elections at the same time could explain at least some of the numbers we’ve been talking about.
Which contradicts a lot of the unexamined assumptions people typically have about the kinds of places where violence occurs.
Because as ACLED notes, “most conflict is not occurring in ‘poor’ or ‘isolated’ autocratic states but in ‘partially free’ countries.” [Quote same link and Image]
As well as in middle-income countries, and increasingly even high-income ones too. [Quote same link, find “middle-income” and image]
Leading the group to state, “in short, more development and democracy do not constrain violence.” [Same quote]
But of course, two things can be true at once; elections may have made this year especially bad, and there are still longer-term trends making things even worse.
So you have the International Rescue Committee laying out four global “imbalances” that it says are responsible for the deterioration in world affairs.
(One) hard power overwhelming diplomacy, (two) civilians bearing the brunt of war, (three) the climate crisis adding to humanitarian need, and (four) economic inequality adding to the burden. [Quote, find “hard power”]
All of which sound to me like extremely intractable problems that make me want to just shrink away from the world and bury my face in a plate of delicious chocolate eclairs.
But you know what? I’ll take a cue from myself. We can do both.
I can stuff myself full of custard-filled treats and confront the terrifying openness of the future head on.
Links:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/12/12/conflict-war-2024-israel-gaza-ukraine/
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2024/nov/21/world-conflict-zones-increased-by-two-thirds-past-three-years-report-ukraine-myanmar-middle-east-africa
