It’s really hilarious how they create arbitrary “definitions” for themselves and pick and choose when and how to use them.
Have to put down people of developing countries? yea, you’re from third world country. It’s suddenly about standard of life, civic sense, and freedom.
Falls to fascism like it’s just another weekend and lets police run like brown shirts, does very little when they build concentration camps and climate choking machines, now the condition for “first world” switches to “we’re still ‘first world’ because we defined it”
Fuck right off with your made up definitions. You can self assign yourself whatever the fuck you want, doesn’t mean rest of the world has to adhere by your “definition”.
By its literal definition. First world describes the US and its allies, the second world described the Soviet bloc, and the third world is everyone else/the non-aligned nations.
That’s the US definition… the rest of the world refuses to acknowledge that defintion and uses a modern one. It’s antiquated and a selfish, only the US continues its use in that defintion.
Here’s Wikipedia. It’s not my definition. I’m also not saying people haven’t used it in a derogatory way now as a term to refer to underdeveloped nations.
The term Third World arose during the Cold War to define countries that remained non-aligned with either NATO or the Warsaw Pact. The United States, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Turkey, the Southern Cone, Western European countries and other allies represented the “First World”, while the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, Romania and the rest of the Warsaw Pact and their allies represented the “Second World”. This terminology provided a way of broadly categorizing the nations of the Earth into three groups based on political divisions. Due to the complex history of evolving meanings and contexts, there is no clear or agreed-upon definition of the Third World.[1] Strictly speaking, “Third World” was a political, rather than economic, grouping.[2]
Political alignments in Europe during the Cold War after 1961
Since most Third World countries were economically poor and non-industrialized, it became a stereotype or a derogatory euphemism to refer to developing countries as “third-world.” In political discourse, the term Third World was often associated with being underdeveloped. China was labeled “Third World” for several decades in the 20th century before its robust development in the 21st century. Some countries in the Eastern Bloc, such as Cuba, were often regarded as Third World. The Third World was normally seen to include many countries with colonial pasts in Africa, Latin America, Oceania, and Asia. It was also sometimes taken as synonymous with countries in the Non-Aligned Movement. In the dependency theory of thinkers like Raúl Prebisch, Walter Rodney, Theotônio dos Santos, and others, the Third World has also been connected to the world-systemic economic division as “periphery” countries dominated by the countries comprising the economic “core”.[1]
In the Cold War, some European democracies (Austria, Finland, Ireland, Sweden, and Switzerland) were neutral in the sense of not joining NATO, but were prosperous, never joined the Non-Aligned Movement, and seldom self-identified as part of the Third World.
Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, other terms have also been used instead of Third World such as developing countries, least developed countries or the Global South.
“First world” was a Cold War era term, where “first world” is America-aligned nations (so by definition, that would include the U.S.), “second world” was Soviet-sligned (no longer really in use since the Soviets no longer exist), and third world was everybody who didn’t pick a side (so China after Sino-Soviet split, India, Brazil, etc.)
Most organisations use the more neutral terms “developed” and “developing”, and the U.S. is definitely a developed nation (there are less binary terms that economists and such use to categorise even further that you could look into, just check the organisation who runs it since many can be biased towards certain things compared to others)
Personally I think those terms are still kinda weird. Like “developed” isn’t a binary. You never stop developing as a nation. Sometimes you backslide too.
Sure, continue to perpetuate the selfish and ignorant defintion dude! You’re only making things worse by trying to reuse the antiquated USA centric definition. Only Americans use that one still.
I am not trying to encourage the use of the term (it was a Cold War term), the idea of developing nations being part of the “third world” implies that they are far lesser than the first world nations, so it’s a stupid term that nobody should use in my opinion.
You’re refusing to even believe there’s another one, if you perpetuate the antiquated one, and incorrectly try and correct someone who is trying to use it right, you’re only making things worse.
Again, the idea of developing nations being in a “third” world isn’t good. Putting down people from being a “third world” country isn’t good. I am not advocating for this term, it is a stupid term that international organisations no longer use.
And yes, alternatives exist. Developed/developing is better, though not perfect, and there are other, more accurate metrics and classifications on the development of nations
Anywhere but the selfish United States it is. Do they not teach you how words and language can evolve…?
The only place still using the antiquated definition is the US. I think it’s so they can feel better or something, but yeah. Stop perpetuating outdated and racist definitions.
We aren’t advocating Cold War era definitions! We’re saying first/third world is stupid and nobody should really use it!! There’s a reason why most economists and such use developed/developing (or less binary classifications)
Who’s refering to poor places? The link provides multiple metrics, and lots of developing countries meet it. But anytime it gets talked about, all anyone does is bring up the antiquated defintion to derail the conversation.
Your defence is what people use to try and prevent the US from being labeled properly as third world. Which is just funny as hell.
“First world” just meant the states that were America-aligned (so by definition, the U.S. goes here).
The “world” term is stupid and nobody should use it anymore (it implies that “third world” countries are lesser than America’s allies)
Developing / developed economies is what more people use nowadays, and the U.S. would be classified as developed, though a binary is still not too helpful given there are lots of in-betweeens (the big elephant in the room, China, argues it should remain classified as a developing nation because, as it turns out, there is wealth inequality there too + billionaires taking too much of the pie, so a large chunk of people still live under conditions closer to developing countries, while others say that China should be a developed nation given they have the second strongest economy)
I literally said the term is stupid and nobody should use it. I’m not advocating for it because it isn’t a good definition. Also, having developing nations classified as a part of the “lesser world” is not good at all!
Again, I would avoid using “first world” 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.
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!
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is essentially how the Turpin family was discovered in 2018. One of the girls made friends online (on YouTube singing at first, I think) and it led to her eventually escaping and getting to a cop.
That was in Perris, California; north of San Diego.
The victim is from Utah, rescued in Oregon. It sounds like something from a third-world country, but it happens everywhere.
Isn’t this from the US? I mean, isn’t that close to third world to standards compared to Canada or Europe?
I mean, pretty sure the US shouldn’t be considered first world anymore. So you’re still right.
USA is first world by definition, regardless of what happened it can only ever be first world because the USA, is by definition first world.
Whose fucking definition?
It’s really hilarious how they create arbitrary “definitions” for themselves and pick and choose when and how to use them.
Have to put down people of developing countries? yea, you’re from third world country. It’s suddenly about standard of life, civic sense, and freedom.
Falls to fascism like it’s just another weekend and lets police run like brown shirts, does very little when they build concentration camps and climate choking machines, now the condition for “first world” switches to “we’re still ‘first world’ because we defined it”
Fuck right off with your made up definitions. You can self assign yourself whatever the fuck you want, doesn’t mean rest of the world has to adhere by your “definition”.
By its literal definition. First world describes the US and its allies, the second world described the Soviet bloc, and the third world is everyone else/the non-aligned nations.
That’s the US definition… the rest of the world refuses to acknowledge that defintion and uses a modern one. It’s antiquated and a selfish, only the US continues its use in that defintion.
Give it a rest
Here’s Wikipedia. It’s not my definition. I’m also not saying people haven’t used it in a derogatory way now as a term to refer to underdeveloped nations.
The term Third World arose during the Cold War to define countries that remained non-aligned with either NATO or the Warsaw Pact. The United States, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Turkey, the Southern Cone, Western European countries and other allies represented the “First World”, while the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, Romania and the rest of the Warsaw Pact and their allies represented the “Second World”. This terminology provided a way of broadly categorizing the nations of the Earth into three groups based on political divisions. Due to the complex history of evolving meanings and contexts, there is no clear or agreed-upon definition of the Third World.[1] Strictly speaking, “Third World” was a political, rather than economic, grouping.[2] Political alignments in Europe during the Cold War after 1961
Since most Third World countries were economically poor and non-industrialized, it became a stereotype or a derogatory euphemism to refer to developing countries as “third-world.” In political discourse, the term Third World was often associated with being underdeveloped. China was labeled “Third World” for several decades in the 20th century before its robust development in the 21st century. Some countries in the Eastern Bloc, such as Cuba, were often regarded as Third World. The Third World was normally seen to include many countries with colonial pasts in Africa, Latin America, Oceania, and Asia. It was also sometimes taken as synonymous with countries in the Non-Aligned Movement. In the dependency theory of thinkers like Raúl Prebisch, Walter Rodney, Theotônio dos Santos, and others, the Third World has also been connected to the world-systemic economic division as “periphery” countries dominated by the countries comprising the economic “core”.[1]
In the Cold War, some European democracies (Austria, Finland, Ireland, Sweden, and Switzerland) were neutral in the sense of not joining NATO, but were prosperous, never joined the Non-Aligned Movement, and seldom self-identified as part of the Third World.
Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, other terms have also been used instead of Third World such as developing countries, least developed countries or the Global South.
You just conveniently leave out the portion that talks about the modern defintion and interject your own. The fuck?
It’s been a while since someone has intentionally editorialize a quote, probably why you left out all the hyperlinks and everything too.
Stable economy, and high standard of living are missing dude.
“First world” was a Cold War era term, where “first world” is America-aligned nations (so by definition, that would include the U.S.), “second world” was Soviet-sligned (no longer really in use since the Soviets no longer exist), and third world was everybody who didn’t pick a side (so China after Sino-Soviet split, India, Brazil, etc.)
Most organisations use the more neutral terms “developed” and “developing”, and the U.S. is definitely a developed nation (there are less binary terms that economists and such use to categorise even further that you could look into, just check the organisation who runs it since many can be biased towards certain things compared to others)
Personally I think those terms are still kinda weird. Like “developed” isn’t a binary. You never stop developing as a nation. Sometimes you backslide too.
You’re not alone, that’s why they’re only used today in Reddit/Lemmy comments and Republican tweets. Oh, recently probably Executive Orders too.
Sure, continue to perpetuate the selfish and ignorant defintion dude! You’re only making things worse by trying to reuse the antiquated USA centric definition. Only Americans use that one still.
I am not trying to encourage the use of the term (it was a Cold War term), the idea of developing nations being part of the “third world” implies that they are far lesser than the first world nations, so it’s a stupid term that nobody should use in my opinion.
What’s wrong with the modern defintion?
You’re refusing to even believe there’s another one, if you perpetuate the antiquated one, and incorrectly try and correct someone who is trying to use it right, you’re only making things worse.
Again, the idea of developing nations being in a “third” world isn’t good. Putting down people from being a “third world” country isn’t good. I am not advocating for this term, it is a stupid term that international organisations no longer use.
And yes, alternatives exist. Developed/developing is better, though not perfect, and there are other, more accurate metrics and classifications on the development of nations
That’s not the definition of first world… Switzerland is a third world country by definition
Anywhere but the selfish United States it is. Do they not teach you how words and language can evolve…?
The only place still using the antiquated definition is the US. I think it’s so they can feel better or something, but yeah. Stop perpetuating outdated and racist definitions.
We aren’t advocating Cold War era definitions! We’re saying first/third world is stupid and nobody should really use it!! There’s a reason why most economists and such use developed/developing (or less binary classifications)
This exactly!!! hahahha. Saying third world to refer to poor places is the antiquated and racist omg haha.
Who’s refering to poor places? The link provides multiple metrics, and lots of developing countries meet it. But anytime it gets talked about, all anyone does is bring up the antiquated defintion to derail the conversation.
Your defence is what people use to try and prevent the US from being labeled properly as third world. Which is just funny as hell.
Cuz Murica numba one!
The us made up first and third world. It’s the definition of first world country.
Stable economy, and high standard of living is missing, so they made it up, but they sure don’t met the bar anymore.
“First world” just meant the states that were America-aligned (so by definition, the U.S. goes here).
The “world” term is stupid and nobody should use it anymore (it implies that “third world” countries are lesser than America’s allies)
Developing / developed economies is what more people use nowadays, and the U.S. would be classified as developed, though a binary is still not too helpful given there are lots of in-betweeens (the big elephant in the room, China, argues it should remain classified as a developing nation because, as it turns out, there is wealth inequality there too + billionaires taking too much of the pie, so a large chunk of people still live under conditions closer to developing countries, while others say that China should be a developed nation given they have the second strongest economy)
That’s the American centric definition, yes. Why are you continuing to choose an antiquated and selfish definition?
The only ones I see using it are Americans, so they can continue to believe they aren’t third world.
Only Americans use that word. The rest of the world knows how selfish and wrong it is.
Proof
I literally said the term is stupid and nobody should use it. I’m not advocating for it because it isn’t a good definition. Also, having developing nations classified as a part of the “lesser world” is not good at all!
Again, I would avoid using “first world” and “third world”
Nah, it being in the us is not surprising.
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.
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!
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 :/
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
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. 🖖🏼
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! 🤘🏼
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.
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.
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.
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. 😅
It sounds exactly like something that happens in a shithole country like the us
This is essentially how the Turpin family was discovered in 2018. One of the girls made friends online (on YouTube singing at first, I think) and it led to her eventually escaping and getting to a cop.
That was in Perris, California; north of San Diego.
The article says they just went through a window and called 911
You really can’t see any connections between a teen using Among Us to find help, and a teen using YouTube to find help?
They “just” went through a window to find help? What’s your point here?
I just wondered why someone would be this pedantic about kidnapping awareness. Like, why?
So I asked, and you downvoted. Smart!