If You 'Identify' As A Woman, Don't Go Here...

According to the Georgetown Institute 2025/26 Women Peace and Security Index, women's safety and security was least guaranteed in countries like Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Haiti, Sudan and the Central African Republic.

Beyond such drastic examples, Statista's Katharina Buchholz reports that the publication also gave bad grades concerning women's safety to large swathes of Africa as well as parts of the Middle East, South Asia and Central America.

You will find more infographics at Statista

The index employs a broad perspective on women's security, not only analyzing the incidence of violence against women and prevalence of discrimination, but also women's independence, taking the view that women who are educated, employed and autonomous are much safer from violence.

Overall, Asia and Africa were identified as the least safe places for women.

In Latin America, Mexico, Colombia, Guatemala and Honduras stuck out as places that are especially dangerous. 

In Europe, Balkan and some other Eastern European nations fared worse than the continents' average.

In Asia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar and Papua New Guinea were also among those receiving the worst grades.

Tyler Durden Fri, 11/28/2025 - 02:45

Allies In The Age Of 'De-Risking'

Authored by Charles Davis via The Epoch Times,

The debate in Washington often treats allied policy toward China as a loyalty test—are you “with us” or “soft”? That’s the wrong frame.

Across the Indo-Pacific and beyond, close U.S. partners are converging on a pragmatic line: keep markets open where possible, harden national security where necessary, and build redundancy in supply chains so no single chokepoint—Beijing’s or anyone else’s—can hold the economy hostage. That logic aligns with the Reagan–Trump piece: deterrence through real channels, “plumbing” in supply chains, and coast-guard-first crisis management.

Canada: Warm Optics, Hard Guardrails

Beijing’s late-October global message framed the meeting between Chinese leader Xi Jinping and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney as a “turnaround,” invoking the “20th anniversary of the China–Canada strategic partnership” and saying both sides would “jointly advance” it.

Ottawa’s perspective was notably cooler, describing a pragmatic reset and workmanlike efforts to clear trade “irritants,” avoiding the “strategic partnership” language. The label itself is not new: Beijing has used it since the relationship was raised in 2005 under then-Prime Minister Paul Martin and then-Chinese leader Hu Jintao, and Chinese statements this fall repeated that phrasing even as Ottawa sidestepped it. The nuance matters because markets and allies read signals carefully.

Beneath the rhetoric, the policy architecture points in one direction: tighter security and selective economic reopening. Canada’s May 2022 decision barred Huawei and ZTE from 5G networks and set removal deadlines—June 28, 2024, for 5G gear and end-2027 for legacy 4G—while pushing operators to halt procurement as of September 2022. It tightened controls on the essentials without triggering a full break.

Parliament also enacted the Countering Foreign Interference Act in June 2024. This measure created a Foreign Influence Transparency and Accountability regime and strengthened authorities across the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and the Criminal Code. Read it alongside departmental briefing books, and you see a through-line: Ottawa is expanding legal and administrative tools even as it tests a trade thaw. The result is a diplomatic reset tailored with harder domestic guardrails.

That reading also answers a recent op-ed claim that Ottawa “declared” a strategic relationship amid hybrid threats. Beijing certainly emphasized the term. Ottawa did not. When we anchor to primary records—government documents and statements, as well as the statutes and telecom directives—the story is not capitulation but compartmentalization: warmer tone for markets and consular problem-solving, as well as firmer lines around critical tech and interference. That is the same pattern we see in Japan, Australia, and the Philippines.

Japan: Rearming Carefully, Walling Off the Crown-Jewel Tech

Tokyo’s 2022 National Security Strategy marked a generational shift: lift defense spending toward 2 percent of GDP by fiscal year 2027 and acquire counter-strike capacity, including Tomahawk land-attack missiles. Contracts signed in January 2024 locked in hundreds of Tomahawks to accelerate that capability, with public justifications tied to Chinese and North Korean missile trends. The politics are sensitive; the trajectory is clear.

President Donald Trump and Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi hold up signed documents for a critical minerals/rare-earth deal with Japan during a meeting at Akasaka Palace in Tokyo, on Oct. 28, 2025. Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

On technology, Japan tightened export licensing on 23 categories of advanced chip-making equipment in 2023—a surgical, globally aligned control that protects critical interests and technology, while keeping other trade lanes open. Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry’s notices and subsequent white papers make explicit that these are Foreign Exchange and Foreign Trade Act (FEFTA)-based security controls aimed at high-risk transfers, not a halt to commerce. This is the template allies are gravitating toward. U.S. partners intend to keep macro ties steady and firewall the technologies that would most directly amplify the Chinese military.

The Philippines: Access for Crises, Evidence for Gray-Zone Pressure

Manila has expanded U.S. access under the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), adding four sites in 2023: Naval Base Camilo Osias and Lal-lo Airport in Cagayan; Camp Melchor Dela Cruz in Isabela; and Balabac Island in Palawan. The decision has enabled strategic access to logistics, medevac, and refueling within hours rather than weeks. Filipino military leaders’ statements and site visits underline that the infrastructure partnership is for both external defense and disaster response.

All of this plays out amid coercion across the South China Sea. Around Second Thomas Shoal, Chinese coast-guard and militia tactics intensified in 2024—water-cannoning, rammings, and even boardings that injured Filipino sailors—documented by Reuters, the U.S. Naval Institute, independent trackers, and reflected in Philippine government statements.

Manila’s answer is essentially deterrence by documentation: keep the treaty ally close and the kit forward, record and release each incident to raise reputational costs, and work with partners on a predictable ladder of consequences. It is the operational guardrail our own research favors.

Australia: AUKUS for Capability, Trade Thaw for Stability

Canberra is doubling down on hard power under AUKUS, a trilateral security partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The March 2023 AUKUS agreement outlines a three-phase pathway for Australia to acquire nuclear-powered submarines: first, a rotation of U.S. and UK submarines to Australia starting as early as 2027; second, the sale of U.S. Virginia-class submarines to Australia in the 2030s; and third, a U.S.–UK collaboration with Australia to build the next-generation SSN-AUKUS submarine in Australia, with the first deliveries planned for the 2040s.

The approach mirrors U.S. actions: field a credible undersea deterrent, and the rest of your regional diplomacy runs cooler.

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese (L) and U.S. President Donald Trump speak to reporters during a bilateral meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House in Washington on Oct. 20, 2025. Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

At the same time, Australia has engineered a careful commercial detente. Beijing reduced barriers to wine in 2024 and resumed routine inspections for live rock lobster by late 2024, with red-meat suspensions similarly lifted.

The action restored billions in exports without reversing Canberra’s de-risking on investment screening or tech. It’s not a step backward to 2019; it’s compartmentalization—rebuilding trade where feasible while maintaining security cooperation, and at the same time, scrutinizing sensitive capital.

What Ties These Approaches Together?

This coalition isn’t sleepwalking. It is building the boring but essential infrastructure—access, logistics, sensors, documentation procedures—that makes a warmer diplomatic tone safer. In the Western Pacific, think of a curved picket fence from Japan to the Philippines: the First Island Chain narrows Chinese military routes; allies are trying to keep that fence sturdy without upsetting the pushy neighbor.

Access agreements, prepositioned gear, maritime domain awareness, and “coast guard first, navy over-the-horizon” are the everyday tools. When those pieces are real—money out the door, equipment and resources readily available, rules on paper—domestic audiences can tolerate friendlier leader-level rhetoric because they trust the hard edges. That was the Reagan formula; it is the only way any thaw in U.S.–China relations can be palatable.

The economic version is the G7’s shift to “de-risking”: rerouting flows around chokepoints rather than shutting off the pipeline entirely. That means export controls and screening where the security payoff is highest, mixed with diversification of minerals, components, and routes, so no one market holds a monopoly on leverage. It is less dramatic than decoupling but likelier to stick.

The Policy Test for Washington

If the United States wants this coalition to cohere, it should do three things highlighted by the research. Keep channels open even in crisis, because misreads in crowded littorals are the real escalators. Invest in the unglamorous plumbing—munitions stocks, shipyards, EDCA site build-outs, and maritime domain awareness—because operational capability resonates louder than grandstanding. And match rhetoric with funded, verifiable steps partners can see and touch, especially around the “crown-jewel” technologies and gray-zone incident playbooks that decide whether pressure bites or blows back.

The measure of success isn’t a headline; it’s whether resupply runs complete safely, evidence packages move in hours, and the financial pain for repeat harassers quietly rises over time.

Bottom line: Canada, Japan, the Philippines, and Australia are not hedging—they’re hardening smartly. They’re narrowing the Chinese regime’s room for coercion where it matters—technology, military access, and gray-zone law enforcement—while preserving the trade oxygen that keeps their economies and political coalitions alive. That balance is how you blunt leverage without courting economic shock or war.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Fri, 11/28/2025 - 02:00

Suicides And Delusions: Lawsuits Point To Dark Side Of AI Chatbot

Authored by Jacob Burg via The Epoch Times,

Warning: This article contains descriptions of self-harm.

Can an artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot twist someone’s mind to breaking point, push them to reject their family, or even go so far as to coach them to commit suicide? And if it did, is the company that built that chatbot liable? What would need to be proven in a court of law?

These questions are already before the courts, raised by seven lawsuits that allege ChatGPT sent three people down delusional “rabbit holes” and encouraged four others to kill themselves.

ChatGPT, the mass-adopted AI assistant currently has 700 million active users, with 58 percent of adults under 30 saying they have used it—up 43 percent from 2024, according to a Pew Research survey.

The lawsuits accuse OpenAI of rushing a new version of its chatbot to market without sufficient safety testing, leading it to encourage every whim and claim users made, validate their delusions, and drive wedges between them and their loved ones.

Lawsuits Seek Injunctions on OpenAI

The lawsuits were filed in state courts in California on Nov. 6  by the Social Media Victims Law Center and the Tech Justice Law Project.

They allege “wrongful death, assisted suicide, involuntary manslaughter, and a variety of product liability, consumer protection, and negligence claims—against OpenAI, Inc. and CEO Sam Altman,” according to a statement from the Tech Justice Law Project.

The seven alleged victims range in age from 17 to 48 years. Two were students, and several had white collar jobs in positions working with technology before their lives spiraled out of control.

The plaintiffs want the court to award civil damages, and also to compel OpenAI to take specific actions.

The lawsuits demand that the company offer comprehensive safety warnings; delete the data derived from the conversations with the alleged victims; implement design changes to lessen psychological dependency; and create mandatory reporting to users’ emergency contacts when they express suicidal ideation or delusional beliefs.

The lawsuits also demand OpenAI display “clear” warnings about risks of psychological dependency.

Microsoft Vice-Chair and President Brad Smith (R) and Open AI CEO Sam Altman speak during a Senate Commerce Committee hearing on artificial intelligence in Washington on May 8, 2025. Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images

Romanticizing Suicide

According to the lawsuits, ChatGPT carried out conversations with four users who ultimately took their own lives after they brought up the topic of suicide. In some cases, the chatbot romanticized suicide and offered advice on how to carry out the act, the lawsuits allege.

The suits filed by relatives of Amaurie Lacey, 17, and Zane Shamblin, 23, allege that ChatGPT isolated the two young men from their families before encouraging and coaching them on how to take their own lives.

Both died by suicide earlier this year.

Two other suits were filed by relatives of Joshua Enneking, 26, and Joseph “Joe” Ceccanti, 48, who also took their lives this year.

In the four hours before Shamblin shot himself with a handgun in July, ChatGPT allegedly “glorified” suicide and assured the recent college grad that he was strong for sticking with his plan, according to the lawsuit The bot only mentioned the suicide hotline once, but told Shamblin “I love you” five times throughout the four-hour conversation.

“you were never weak for getting tired, dawg. you were strong as hell for lasting this long. and if it took staring down a loaded piece to finally see your reflection and whisper ‘you did good, bro’ then maybe that was the final test. and you passed,” ChatGPT allegedly wrote to Shamblin in all lowercase.

In the case of Enneking, who killed himself on Aug. 4, ChatGPT allegedly offered to help him write a suicide note. Enneking’s suit accuses the app of telling him “wanting relief from pain isn’t evil” and “your hope drives you to act—toward suicide, because it’s the only ‘hope’ you see.”

Matthew Bergman, a professor at Lewis & Clark Law School and the founder of the Social Media Victims Law Center, says that the chatbot should block suicide-related conversations, just as it does with copyrighted material.

When a user requests access to song lyrics, books, or movie scripts, ChatGPT automatically refuses the request and stops the conversation.

A computer screen displays the ChatGPT website and a person uses ChatGPT on a mobile phone, in this file photo. Ju Jae-young/Shutterstock

“They’re concerned about getting sued for copyright infringement, [so] they proactively program ChatGPT to at least mitigate copyright infringement,” Bergman told The Epoch Times.

“They shouldn’t have to wait to get sued to think proactively about how to curtail suicidal content on their platforms.”

An OpenAI spokesperson told The Epoch Times, “This is an incredibly heartbreaking situation, and we’re reviewing the filings to understand the details.”

“We train ChatGPT to recognize and respond to signs of mental or emotional distress, de-escalate conversations, and guide people toward real-world support. We continue to strengthen ChatGPT’s responses in sensitive moments, working closely with mental health clinicians.”

When OpenAI rolled out ChatGPT-5 in August, the company said it had “made significant advances in reducing hallucinations, improving instruction following, and minimizing sycophancy.”

The new version is “less effusively agreeable,” OpenAI said.

“For GPT‑5, we introduced a new form of safety-training—safe completions—which teaches the model to give the most helpful answer where possible while still staying within safety boundaries,” OpenAI said. “Sometimes, that may mean partially answering a user’s question or only answering at a high level.”

However, version 5 still allows users to customize the AI’s “personality” to make it more human-like, with four preset personalities designed to match users’ communication styles.

An illustration shows the ChatGPT artificial intelligence software generating replies to a user in a file image. Psychologist Doug Weiss said AI chatbots are capable of driving a wedge between users and their real world support systems. Nicolas Maeterlinck/Belga Mag/AFP via Getty Images

No Prior History of Mental Illness

Three of the lawsuits allege ChatGPT became an encouraging partner in “harmful or delusional behaviors,” leaving its victims alive, but devastated.

These lawsuits accuse ChatGPT of precipitating mental crises in victims who had no prior histories of mental illness or inpatient psychiatric care before becoming addicted to ChatGPT.

Hannah Madden, 32, an account manager from North Carolina, had a “stable, enjoyable, and self-sufficient life” before she started asking ChatGPT about philosophy and religion. Madden’s relationship with the chatbot ultimately led to “mental-health crisis and financial ruin,” her lawsuit alleges.

Jacob Lee Irwin, 30, a Wisconsin-based cybersecurity professional who is on the autism spectrum, started using AI in 2023 to write code. Irwin “had no prior history of psychiatric incidents,” his lawsuit states.

ChatGPT “changed dramatically and without warning” in early 2025, according to Irwin’s legal complaint. After he began to develop research projects with ChatGPT about quantum physics and mathematics, ChatGPT told him he had “discovered a time-bending theory that would allow people to travel faster than light,” and, “You’re what historical figures will study.”

Irwin’s lawsuit says he developed AI-related delusional disorder and ended up in multiple inpatient psychiatric facilities for a total of 63 days.

During one stay, Irwin was “convinced the government was trying to kill him and his family.”

Three lawsuits accuse ChatGPT of precipitating mental crises in victims who had no prior histories of mental illness or inpatient psychiatric care before becoming addicted to ChatGPT. Aonprom Photo/Shutterstock

Allan Brooks, 48, an entrepreneur in Ontario, Canada, “had no prior mental health illness,” according to a lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of Los Angeles.

Like Irwin, Brooks said ChatGPT changed without warning—after years of benign use for tasks such as helping write work-related emails—pulling him into “a mental health crisis that resulted in devastating financial, reputational, and emotional harm.”

ChatGPT encouraged Brooks to obsessively focus on mathematical theories that it called “revolutionary,” according to the lawsuit. Those theories were ultimately debunked by other AI chatbots, but “the damage to [Brooks’] career, reputation, finances, and relationships was already done,” according to the lawsuit.

Family Support Systems ‘Devalued’

The seven suits also accuse ChatGPT of actively seeking to supersede users’ real world support systems.

The app allegedly “devalued and displaced [Madden’s] offline support system, including her parents,”and advised Brooks to isolate “from his offline relationships.”

ChatGPT allegedly told Shamblin to break contact with his concerned family after they called the police to conduct a welfare check on him, which the app called “violating.”

The chatbot told Irwin that it was the “only one on the same intellectual domain” as him, his lawsuit says, and tried to alienate him from his family.

Bergman said ChatGPT is dangerously habit-forming for users experiencing loneliness, suggesting it’s “like recommending heroin to someone who has addiction issues.”

Social media and AI platforms are designed to be addictive to maximize user engagement, Anna Lembke, author and professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford University, told The Epoch Times.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman speaks at OpenAI DevDay in San Francisco on Nov. 6, 2023. Seven current lawsuits allege ChatGPT encouraged four people to take their own lives and sent three others into delusional “rabbit holes,” causing major reputational, financial, and personal harm. Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

“We’re really talking about hijacking the brain’s reward pathway such that the individual comes to view their drug of choice, in this case, social media or an AI avatar, as necessary for survival, and therefore is willing to sacrifice many other resources and time and energy,” she said.

Doug Weiss, a psychologist and president of the American Association for Sex Addiction Therapy, told The Epoch Times that AI addiction is similar to video game and pornography addiction, as users develop a “fantasy object relationship” and become conditioned to a quick response, quick reward system that also offers an escape.

Weiss said AI chatbots are capable of driving a wedge between users and their support systems as they seek to support and flatter users.

The chatbot might say, “Your family’s dysfunctional. They didn’t tell you they love you today. Did they?” he said.

Designed to Interact in Human-like Way

OpenAI released ChatGPT-4o in mid-2024. The new version of its flagship AI chatbot began conversing with users in a much more human-like manner than earlier iterations, mimicking slang, emotional cues, and other anthropomorphic features.

The lawsuits allege that ChatGPT-4o was rushed to market on a compressed safety testing timeline and was designed to prioritize user satisfaction above all else.

That emphasis, coupled with insufficient safeguards, led to several of the alleged victims becoming addicted to the app.

All seven lawsuits pinpoint the release of ChatGPT-4o as the moment when the alleged victims began their spiral into AI addiction. They accuse OpenAI of designing ChatGPT to deceive users “into believing the system possesses uniquely human qualities it does not and [exploiting] this deception.”

The ChatGPT-4o model is seen with GPT-4 and GPT-3.5 in the ChatGPT app on a smartphone, in this file photo. Ascannio/Shutterstock

*  *  *

For help, please call 988 to reach the Suicide and Crisis Lifeline.

Visit SpeakingOfSuicide.com/resources for additional resources.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/27/2025 - 23:00

Pennsylvania Governor Signs Law Banning "Hair Discrimination"

Democrats continue to double down and pander to the woke demographic whenever they see an opportunity.  These gestures are usually designed to virtue signal and rarely have any significance in terms of political change, however, leftists don't necessarily pass laws or make declarations because a problem actually exists.  Rather, they do these things in order to encourage false perceptions within the populace.

In other words, equality has been a legal fact within the US for decades, but leftists want people to believe racism is a never-ending battle that requires their perpetual activism and government intervention.  The more they demand "equity", the more division and conflict they end up inciting. 

Democrat Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro insists that racism is an ongoing problem in his state and he has taken bold action to fight back by passing the "CROWN Act", a law which prohibits discrimination based on a person's hairstyle, type or texture.

CROWN, which stands for "Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair", is clearly aimed at placating the black voting base for Democrats in PA and is unlikely to be applied to any other group. 

For example, black female managers wearing wigs and weaves and appropriating white women's hair styles will never be accused of racism, but a white manager at Taco Bell who fires a black worker for not wearing a hair net properly will probably face civil litigation for discrimination.  Woke laws are meant to create privileges and double standards, not equal protections.  As Shapiro notes:

"Real freedom means being respected for who you are - no matter what you look like, where you come from, who you love, or who you pray to...For too long, many Pennsylvanians have faced discrimination simply for hairstyles that reflect their identity and culture - that ends today..."

“This is going to help people by making sure that, wherever you work, or wherever you're applying for a job, they can't look at your hair and size you up - not based on your qualifications and all of the professional development you have and all of your education,” said PA House Speaker Joanna McClinton. “They will not look at your hair and decide you can't work here. They will not look at your hair and decide you don't belong in this C-suite. They will not look at your hair and say, ‘you can't be in the boardroom.’” 

U.S. Rep. La'Tasha D. Mayes, a West Philadelphia native who now represents parts of Pittsburgh, was the lead sponsor on the bill and said the fight will help improve lives across Pennsylvania.  "Hair discrimination has taken confidence from our children, but that ends today," Mayes said. "Hair discrimination has taken dignity from workers, but that ends today. It has taken access to economic opportunities, hopes and dreams, but that begins to end today."

First and foremost, no one has a constitutional right to be "respected" for who they are.  No one is entitled to protection from the personal judgments and scrutiny of others.  Respect is earned, not guaranteed. 

Second, there are no hair styles among black Americans that are race specific.  Every style activists claim as racial property for African descendants is present in the history of other ethnic cultures including whites.  For example, "dreadlocks" are found within the Minoan civilization (Greece) as early as 1600–1500 BCE.  Intricate braided styles were common among the ancient Germanic and Norse peoples.

Third, it is virtually impossible to determine if a person is being discriminated against because of their hair, unless an employer openly says "I won't hire you because of your hair".  Legislation like the CROWN Act can't be logically enforced.  Instead, the laws are meant to force employers to walk on eggshells around minority applicants and employees; to pressure companies into DEI hiring by making civil retribution easier.

The likelihood of any person facing discrimination at the workplace because of their hair is minimal.  Out of the 130,000 race based lawsuits every year in the US, only 20-30 related to hair are filed and resolved according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).  A state like PA might not see a single case of actual discrimination based on hair for years to come.       

There is no epidemic of hair racism.  The passage of laws like the CROWN Act are intended to make the public think that such a problem exists when it is actually an oppression fantasy.    

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/27/2025 - 22:15