FYI, “third world” is culturally insensitive, if not racist. Hell, even “developing countries” is ethnocentric at its core. Of course, “historically exploited, oppressed, exsanguinated nations” doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue. 😅
And, yeah, after volunteering w/ anti-trafficking orgs in the PacNW, I learned that NE OR is a notorious crossover for that and worse.
Vast tracts of wild foothills, deep gorges, alpine mountains, dense forests, geolithic scatter, et al, are a added obstacular layers to justice groups.
For example, The Hunted was not unrealistic in its depiction. Meek’s Cutoff, Leave No Trace, Pig, and even the classic Stand By Me are right up there, too. (FWIW, Wild is a honorable mention for showcasing the diverse, and largely untouched backcountry along the PCT) 🤘🏼
Nor does third world country even mean “developing countries” or “historically exploited, oppressed, exsanguinated nations” it means not US or Soviet aligned but it seems everyone has forgot that.
The US can’t stop being a first world country because the entire definition of first world country is US aligned. (unless the russians completely take over the US at which point they would be second world i guess?)
Edit: Unless you mean the maoist sense, then third world does mean “historically exploited, oppressed, exsanguinated nations”, but in that definition the US would still not be part of the third world.
Most of those words you used have had their definitions changed or didn’t exist in the past…. So you’re using words that you shouldn’t use if that’s what you think.
Words also have multiple meanings, and you can already choose which one depending on the situation.
People like you just refuse to acknowledge change.
“You refuse to change words arbitrarily, yet you are using words that changed in the past, curious. Here is a screenshot of Wikipedia. I am very intelligent” is all I’m getting here from this.
Words changed in the past before we had things like dictionaries and shit, different times
(And the Soviet Union was dissolved like a decade before I was born so I don’t think it’s a “refuse to change” thing 😭)
“You refuse to change words arbitrarily, yet you are using words that changed in the past, curious. Here is a screenshot of Wikipedia. I am very intelligent” is all I’m getting here from this.
What’s arbitrary about using a non-racist, non-selfish modern defintion of a word?
Words changed in the past before we had things like dictionaries and shit, different times
What? Words continue to change, and to be added to the dictionary.
You think they printed edition one of the dictionary and that’s all we’ve ever had?
You’re perpetuating an antiquated word, only the US uses it, and people like you allow it to be perpetuated by dogging your heels in that “language can’t evolve”. It still is, and always will.
Is there any source I could provide that WOULD change your mind? I can go into multiple dictionary websites and choose a random word and show your it’s history over time. Almost every word has a history, unlike what you’re claiming and saying here.
Look, crunk wasn’t even a word when dictionary’s were invented, and yet it’s in one… how could that be if words can’t evolve and change…?
We are not perpetuating racism, nor the selfish interests of the Americans. I’m not an American mate, and certainly not racist!
We are saying that this term was historically defined as such, and so should not be used to classify the economies of nations. It implies that some nations are of a lesser world than others, which is bad! We should not accept this!
Yes, language can change, but “first world” and “third world” is still rooted in prejudice against developing nations, there is a reason why many international organisations no longer use it.
Developing/developed is not fantastic either (albeit much better than first/third world) with lots of grey area, turns out binary classifications are not all that great for complicated things :/
You’re pointing to a lot of words before the 2000s, I’m starting to believe words stopped evolving when I was born instead. Devolving, maybe, with something like “literally”
Anyway I don’t really care if the word is “only used in the US,” that’s where I live dude 😭
If I wanted to speak Japanese I’d speak Japanese. And I do indeed hate changing language and I am dogging my heals to make that stop changing
This isn’t really a “source” argument either tbh, I think we both gotta speak from the heart here
Mate, we are not advocating for the use of the U.S. centric definition (and not the Maoist one either). “First world” and “third world” are not good terms to classify the economies and stability of nations, given its historic bias towards America’s allies (which is stupid!) and how developing nations are put as a “third world”, like they are lesser (very very stupid!! We are not supporting this!!!)
When we mention this definition, we are not approving or accepting the use of the term to mean it, we are trying to say this term shouldn’t be used at all!
Developed/developing is a bit better, but as others have said that is not perfect either. Turns out, the economies and stability of nations does not fit nicely in a binary!
Well i’m from the Netherlands and i use that as the definition so your statement of it being US only is false.
The three worlds model is called the 3 worlds because there was a quite clear cut line between if a county was US, Soviet, or non aligned. and these “worlds” were called worlds because the people of the first and second world had relatively little contact with eachother.
Yes its an antiquated definition i agree, so why try to use the antiquated three worlds model nowadays where it no longer makes sense to use? What is the second world now according to your definition?
Just another step on the euphemism treadmill honestly. And less accurate. Idk what’s wrong with saying a country is developing or undeveloped, its much less ambiguous than global south or third world, when 99% of the time what youre trying to say is that the country lacks infrastructure, economic development, and law and order.
Imo “Global South” is actually the most problematic of the three because it implies that a country is undeveloped because of its geographic position. I.e. the implication is “if you’re south of the equator, your country sucks.” Any nation can move from undeveloped to developing or developing to developed, but you can’t move your physical location on the map.
Yeah “developing country” is probably best. Being American, “Global South” always reminds me of the southern US, which if it were independent would also be considered a developing country.
What makes a country ‘developed’? Is the US becoming undeveloped because they’ve fallen so far below the standard of other countries with a high quality of life? If countries move from ‘undeveloped’ to ‘developing’ to ‘developed’ what happens when they start to move backwards? You can’t say they’re ‘developing’ because that implies forward progress, so then does the middle stage become ‘de-developing’? And at what point is progress supposed to just stop because the country is ‘developed’ now? That implies a finality to the process. The whole thing is stupid.
Developed vs developing vs undeveloped are pretty well defined. They are relative terms. So sure you could in theory move from developed to developing, that kind of thing happens very rarely though.
I do agree that “developing” implies progression towards developed, so a more accurate term would be something like “partially developed” but its clunkier. Overall though I think they are far more accurate terms than the alternatives.
From your link:
"According to the United Nations Statistics Division:
There is no established convention for the designation of "developed" and "developing" countries or areas in the United Nations system.[7]"
I do think rankings like the Human Development Index can be useful, which is a 1-5 ranking based on seven criteria like quality of life, life expectancy and income, but calling some countries ‘developed’ as though they’ve hit the end of some process and no further work needs to be done, while other countries must obviously be ‘developing’ towards that standard is just such an incredibly arrogant narrow-minded worldview that really showcases American exceptionalism.
Well, I wouldn’t say that “developed” implies countries aren’t trying to improve themselves further, any more than “rich” people aren’t trying to get richer. You can call it whatever you want but at the end of the day you need to have some terms to describe poor countries where people die of treatable diseases because they lack infrastructure and money, and countries that don’t (as an example). Global South is just a euphemism for the same but a lot less intuitive and accurate.
There isnt a developing country on the planet that isn’t trying to be considered developed.
And I dont think this is a particulary American term. Third-world, sure.
As someone from developing country, i’d rather be called that than Global South, because it imply that the southern countries are all underdeveloped while northern country are developed. Which kinda mean Austrailia, New Zealand, and Singapore are all underdeveloped country. Inaccurate as heck, but not as bad as saying first and third world.
FYI, “third world” is culturally insensitive, if not racist. Hell, even “developing countries” is ethnocentric at its core. Of course, “historically exploited, oppressed, exsanguinated nations” doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue. 😅
And, yeah, after volunteering w/ anti-trafficking orgs in the PacNW, I learned that NE OR is a notorious crossover for that and worse.
Vast tracts of wild foothills, deep gorges, alpine mountains, dense forests, geolithic scatter, et al, are a added obstacular layers to justice groups.
For example, The Hunted was not unrealistic in its depiction. Meek’s Cutoff, Leave No Trace, Pig, and even the classic Stand By Me are right up there, too. (FWIW, Wild is a honorable mention for showcasing the diverse, and largely untouched backcountry along the PCT) 🤘🏼
Nor does third world country even mean “developing countries” or “historically exploited, oppressed, exsanguinated nations” it means not US or Soviet aligned but it seems everyone has forgot that.
The US can’t stop being a first world country because the entire definition of first world country is US aligned. (unless the russians completely take over the US at which point they would be second world i guess?)
Edit: Unless you mean the maoist sense, then third world does mean “historically exploited, oppressed, exsanguinated nations”, but in that definition the US would still not be part of the third world.
I mean, that’s only if you choose to continue to use the US only defintion. Part of language is it evolving, the words usage has changed.
It now, no longer meets the bars of “stable economy” and “high standard of living”.
But sure, continue to use an antiquated definiton.
Anytime I see “language is always evolving” it’s always to excuse someone using language wrong
Evolution is “god be with you” turning into goodbye, not redefining a word to fit your definition instead 😭
Most of those words you used have had their definitions changed or didn’t exist in the past…. So you’re using words that you shouldn’t use if that’s what you think.
Words also have multiple meanings, and you can already choose which one depending on the situation.
People like you just refuse to acknowledge change.
“You refuse to change words arbitrarily, yet you are using words that changed in the past, curious. Here is a screenshot of Wikipedia. I am very intelligent” is all I’m getting here from this.
Words changed in the past before we had things like dictionaries and shit, different times
(And the Soviet Union was dissolved like a decade before I was born so I don’t think it’s a “refuse to change” thing 😭)
What’s arbitrary about using a non-racist, non-selfish modern defintion of a word?
What? Words continue to change, and to be added to the dictionary.
You think they printed edition one of the dictionary and that’s all we’ve ever had?
You’re perpetuating an antiquated word, only the US uses it, and people like you allow it to be perpetuated by dogging your heels in that “language can’t evolve”. It still is, and always will.
Is there any source I could provide that WOULD change your mind? I can go into multiple dictionary websites and choose a random word and show your it’s history over time. Almost every word has a history, unlike what you’re claiming and saying here.
Look, crunk wasn’t even a word when dictionary’s were invented, and yet it’s in one… how could that be if words can’t evolve and change…?
We are not perpetuating racism, nor the selfish interests of the Americans. I’m not an American mate, and certainly not racist!
We are saying that this term was historically defined as such, and so should not be used to classify the economies of nations. It implies that some nations are of a lesser world than others, which is bad! We should not accept this!
Yes, language can change, but “first world” and “third world” is still rooted in prejudice against developing nations, there is a reason why many international organisations no longer use it.
Developing/developed is not fantastic either (albeit much better than first/third world) with lots of grey area, turns out binary classifications are not all that great for complicated things :/
This is the same energy that brought us “latinx”.
You’re pointing to a lot of words before the 2000s, I’m starting to believe words stopped evolving when I was born instead. Devolving, maybe, with something like “literally”
Anyway I don’t really care if the word is “only used in the US,” that’s where I live dude 😭 If I wanted to speak Japanese I’d speak Japanese. And I do indeed hate changing language and I am dogging my heals to make that stop changing
This isn’t really a “source” argument either tbh, I think we both gotta speak from the heart here
Mate, we are not advocating for the use of the U.S. centric definition (and not the Maoist one either). “First world” and “third world” are not good terms to classify the economies and stability of nations, given its historic bias towards America’s allies (which is stupid!) and how developing nations are put as a “third world”, like they are lesser (very very stupid!! We are not supporting this!!!)
When we mention this definition, we are not approving or accepting the use of the term to mean it, we are trying to say this term shouldn’t be used at all!
Developed/developing is a bit better, but as others have said that is not perfect either. Turns out, the economies and stability of nations does not fit nicely in a binary!
Well i’m from the Netherlands and i use that as the definition so your statement of it being US only is false.
The three worlds model is called the 3 worlds because there was a quite clear cut line between if a county was US, Soviet, or non aligned. and these “worlds” were called worlds because the people of the first and second world had relatively little contact with eachother.
Yes its an antiquated definition i agree, so why try to use the antiquated three worlds model nowadays where it no longer makes sense to use? What is the second world now according to your definition?
I never said or even implied that the US (and all/any others who use[d] it) would qualify for the term, FWIW.
My second paragraph wasn’t meant to imply you said it was meant to talk about the term and how its used like how plantfanatic did.
Oops, sorry. Thanks for that. 🖖🏼
Most of the time “Global South” adequately covers it.
Just another step on the euphemism treadmill honestly. And less accurate. Idk what’s wrong with saying a country is developing or undeveloped, its much less ambiguous than global south or third world, when 99% of the time what youre trying to say is that the country lacks infrastructure, economic development, and law and order.
Imo “Global South” is actually the most problematic of the three because it implies that a country is undeveloped because of its geographic position. I.e. the implication is “if you’re south of the equator, your country sucks.” Any nation can move from undeveloped to developing or developing to developed, but you can’t move your physical location on the map.
Yeah “developing country” is probably best. Being American, “Global South” always reminds me of the southern US, which if it were independent would also be considered a developing country.
What makes a country ‘developed’? Is the US becoming undeveloped because they’ve fallen so far below the standard of other countries with a high quality of life? If countries move from ‘undeveloped’ to ‘developing’ to ‘developed’ what happens when they start to move backwards? You can’t say they’re ‘developing’ because that implies forward progress, so then does the middle stage become ‘de-developing’? And at what point is progress supposed to just stop because the country is ‘developed’ now? That implies a finality to the process. The whole thing is stupid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country
Developed vs developing vs undeveloped are pretty well defined. They are relative terms. So sure you could in theory move from developed to developing, that kind of thing happens very rarely though.
I do agree that “developing” implies progression towards developed, so a more accurate term would be something like “partially developed” but its clunkier. Overall though I think they are far more accurate terms than the alternatives.
From your link: "According to the United Nations Statistics Division:
I do think rankings like the Human Development Index can be useful, which is a 1-5 ranking based on seven criteria like quality of life, life expectancy and income, but calling some countries ‘developed’ as though they’ve hit the end of some process and no further work needs to be done, while other countries must obviously be ‘developing’ towards that standard is just such an incredibly arrogant narrow-minded worldview that really showcases American exceptionalism.
Well, I wouldn’t say that “developed” implies countries aren’t trying to improve themselves further, any more than “rich” people aren’t trying to get richer. You can call it whatever you want but at the end of the day you need to have some terms to describe poor countries where people die of treatable diseases because they lack infrastructure and money, and countries that don’t (as an example). Global South is just a euphemism for the same but a lot less intuitive and accurate.
There isnt a developing country on the planet that isn’t trying to be considered developed.
And I dont think this is a particulary American term. Third-world, sure.
As someone from developing country, i’d rather be called that than Global South, because it imply that the southern countries are all underdeveloped while northern country are developed. Which kinda mean Austrailia, New Zealand, and Singapore are all underdeveloped country. Inaccurate as heck, but not as bad as saying first and third world.
For those in/from the US, perhaps. 😅
Stand By Me takes place in new england, not the pnw.
Stand By Me was primarily filmed in Brownsville, Oregon, along with a few other sites nearby, though “set” in the fictional town of Castle Rock, yes. 🤓☝🏼
Well fuckin TIL.
Hey, not a worry, happy to help! The way I see it: if I’m stuck being me, why not use those powers for good? Welcome to today’s 10,000! 🤘🏼