• plantfanatic@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    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.

    • sbird@retrofed.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      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.

      • plantfanatic@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        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.

        • sbird@retrofed.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          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