▲ 288 ▼ TIL about V-Coding the systemic rape of trans women in US prisons to try to “calm” violent men. (en.wikipedia.org) submitted 1 month ago by TRAHR to c/til@lemmy.ca 108 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] dom@lemmy.ca 64 points 1 month ago (15 children) Jesus America is a third world country. permalink fedilink source hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] moldy_rice@piefed.keyboardvagabond.com 41 points 1 month ago (12 children) No. The US is very much a first world country. It's literally the definition. It is the US. And this is what a capitalist country does. This is what first world countries look like. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [+] dom@lemmy.ca -6 points 1 month ago (11 children) Nah. The Scandinavian countries are what I consider true first world. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] ContriteErudite@lemmy.world 35 points 1 month ago (9 children) Help us out: what do you think “First World,” “Second World,” and “Third World” actually mean? The terms referred to cold war political alignment: the U.S.-led bloc, the Soviet-led bloc, and countries aligned with neither. It was not a tidy ranking from rich and civilized to poor and backward. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago (2 children) Yes those were the original definitions but colloquial usage has shifted from the original meaning. Although these days the preferred terminology is developed/developing/under developed. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] quill7513@anarchist.nexus 7 points 1 month ago (1 child) under developed is only preferred in academic circles, particularly economics. most other places refer to such places as "over-exploited" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] moldy_rice@piefed.keyboardvagabond.com 1 point 1 month ago* Or "2/3rds world" (as in the majority of countries neither aligned with Soviet Communism nor US Capitalism and therefore not as exploited or industrialized/polluting) permalink fedilink source parent [–] manuallybreathing@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago (3 children) I agree with you and you are correct but this is linguistic prescriptivism, which is one of the things the what is a woman crowd cling to but the other people using third wold country to mean allows sex abuse makes my skin crawl Examine your preconceived ideas, before they examine you permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] dom@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 month ago (2 children) I did not mean third world to mean that, but rather in the colloquial sense of how much a country takes care of its people. Understood that so many on this platform strictly care about historical definitions and prescriptive language policing though permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BillyTheKid2@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 month ago (1 child) Being more concerned with the words used than the intended meaning is an internetism that harms us all. I'm guilty of this too.. It's tricky though, because words have meaning- and that meaning really depends on context. Not just the context in which it's spoken, but also the context is the one speaking it. And often people online who think they're arguing are really just misunderstanding each other's definitions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] dom@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 month ago You're absolutely right. In this instance I mistakenly thought it was obvious for most that I did not mean im the strict literal definition. Oh well, no big deal permalink fedilink source parent [–] dom@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 month ago* (1 child) I mean it in the colloquial sense based on how well taken care of the people are. No I am not writing a dissertation. This is a discussion on a message board where people may use hyperbole to make their opinion clear permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Tiresia@slrpnk.net 1 point 1 month ago :Q. What do you call a third world country that takes care of its people as well as Scandinavia?A. Overdue for a CIA coup : permalink fedilink source parent [–] TachyonTele_Esq@piefed.social 10 points 1 month ago First world is not a state of a country, it's a label the US and Europe created after WWII for themselves. permalink fedilink source parent [–] shirro@aussie.zone 8 points 1 month ago No, they aren't and that is the sad thing. They could be a great country. They choose this instead. permalink fedilink source parent [–] alapakala 12 points 1 month ago 🇺🇲🧑🚀🔫🧑🚀has always been. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] moldy_rice@piefed.keyboardvagabond.com 41 points 1 month ago (12 children) No. The US is very much a first world country. It's literally the definition. It is the US. And this is what a capitalist country does. This is what first world countries look like. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [+] dom@lemmy.ca -6 points 1 month ago (11 children) Nah. The Scandinavian countries are what I consider true first world. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] ContriteErudite@lemmy.world 35 points 1 month ago (9 children) Help us out: what do you think “First World,” “Second World,” and “Third World” actually mean? The terms referred to cold war political alignment: the U.S.-led bloc, the Soviet-led bloc, and countries aligned with neither. It was not a tidy ranking from rich and civilized to poor and backward. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago (2 children) Yes those were the original definitions but colloquial usage has shifted from the original meaning. Although these days the preferred terminology is developed/developing/under developed. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] quill7513@anarchist.nexus 7 points 1 month ago (1 child) under developed is only preferred in academic circles, particularly economics. most other places refer to such places as "over-exploited" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] moldy_rice@piefed.keyboardvagabond.com 1 point 1 month ago* Or "2/3rds world" (as in the majority of countries neither aligned with Soviet Communism nor US Capitalism and therefore not as exploited or industrialized/polluting) permalink fedilink source parent [–] manuallybreathing@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago (3 children) I agree with you and you are correct but this is linguistic prescriptivism, which is one of the things the what is a woman crowd cling to but the other people using third wold country to mean allows sex abuse makes my skin crawl Examine your preconceived ideas, before they examine you permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] dom@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 month ago (2 children) I did not mean third world to mean that, but rather in the colloquial sense of how much a country takes care of its people. Understood that so many on this platform strictly care about historical definitions and prescriptive language policing though permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BillyTheKid2@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 month ago (1 child) Being more concerned with the words used than the intended meaning is an internetism that harms us all. I'm guilty of this too.. It's tricky though, because words have meaning- and that meaning really depends on context. Not just the context in which it's spoken, but also the context is the one speaking it. And often people online who think they're arguing are really just misunderstanding each other's definitions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] dom@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 month ago You're absolutely right. In this instance I mistakenly thought it was obvious for most that I did not mean im the strict literal definition. Oh well, no big deal permalink fedilink source parent [–] dom@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 month ago* (1 child) I mean it in the colloquial sense based on how well taken care of the people are. No I am not writing a dissertation. This is a discussion on a message board where people may use hyperbole to make their opinion clear permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Tiresia@slrpnk.net 1 point 1 month ago :Q. What do you call a third world country that takes care of its people as well as Scandinavia?A. Overdue for a CIA coup : permalink fedilink source parent [–] TachyonTele_Esq@piefed.social 10 points 1 month ago First world is not a state of a country, it's a label the US and Europe created after WWII for themselves. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] dom@lemmy.ca -6 points 1 month ago (11 children) Nah. The Scandinavian countries are what I consider true first world. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] ContriteErudite@lemmy.world 35 points 1 month ago (9 children) Help us out: what do you think “First World,” “Second World,” and “Third World” actually mean? The terms referred to cold war political alignment: the U.S.-led bloc, the Soviet-led bloc, and countries aligned with neither. It was not a tidy ranking from rich and civilized to poor and backward. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago (2 children) Yes those were the original definitions but colloquial usage has shifted from the original meaning. Although these days the preferred terminology is developed/developing/under developed. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] quill7513@anarchist.nexus 7 points 1 month ago (1 child) under developed is only preferred in academic circles, particularly economics. most other places refer to such places as "over-exploited" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] moldy_rice@piefed.keyboardvagabond.com 1 point 1 month ago* Or "2/3rds world" (as in the majority of countries neither aligned with Soviet Communism nor US Capitalism and therefore not as exploited or industrialized/polluting) permalink fedilink source parent [–] manuallybreathing@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago (3 children) I agree with you and you are correct but this is linguistic prescriptivism, which is one of the things the what is a woman crowd cling to but the other people using third wold country to mean allows sex abuse makes my skin crawl Examine your preconceived ideas, before they examine you permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] dom@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 month ago (2 children) I did not mean third world to mean that, but rather in the colloquial sense of how much a country takes care of its people. Understood that so many on this platform strictly care about historical definitions and prescriptive language policing though permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BillyTheKid2@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 month ago (1 child) Being more concerned with the words used than the intended meaning is an internetism that harms us all. I'm guilty of this too.. It's tricky though, because words have meaning- and that meaning really depends on context. Not just the context in which it's spoken, but also the context is the one speaking it. And often people online who think they're arguing are really just misunderstanding each other's definitions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] dom@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 month ago You're absolutely right. In this instance I mistakenly thought it was obvious for most that I did not mean im the strict literal definition. Oh well, no big deal permalink fedilink source parent [–] dom@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 month ago* (1 child) I mean it in the colloquial sense based on how well taken care of the people are. No I am not writing a dissertation. This is a discussion on a message board where people may use hyperbole to make their opinion clear permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Tiresia@slrpnk.net 1 point 1 month ago :Q. What do you call a third world country that takes care of its people as well as Scandinavia?A. Overdue for a CIA coup : permalink fedilink source parent [–] TachyonTele_Esq@piefed.social 10 points 1 month ago First world is not a state of a country, it's a label the US and Europe created after WWII for themselves. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ContriteErudite@lemmy.world 35 points 1 month ago (9 children) Help us out: what do you think “First World,” “Second World,” and “Third World” actually mean? The terms referred to cold war political alignment: the U.S.-led bloc, the Soviet-led bloc, and countries aligned with neither. It was not a tidy ranking from rich and civilized to poor and backward. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago (2 children) Yes those were the original definitions but colloquial usage has shifted from the original meaning. Although these days the preferred terminology is developed/developing/under developed. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] quill7513@anarchist.nexus 7 points 1 month ago (1 child) under developed is only preferred in academic circles, particularly economics. most other places refer to such places as "over-exploited" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] moldy_rice@piefed.keyboardvagabond.com 1 point 1 month ago* Or "2/3rds world" (as in the majority of countries neither aligned with Soviet Communism nor US Capitalism and therefore not as exploited or industrialized/polluting) permalink fedilink source parent [–] manuallybreathing@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago (3 children) I agree with you and you are correct but this is linguistic prescriptivism, which is one of the things the what is a woman crowd cling to but the other people using third wold country to mean allows sex abuse makes my skin crawl Examine your preconceived ideas, before they examine you permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] dom@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 month ago (2 children) I did not mean third world to mean that, but rather in the colloquial sense of how much a country takes care of its people. Understood that so many on this platform strictly care about historical definitions and prescriptive language policing though permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BillyTheKid2@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 month ago (1 child) Being more concerned with the words used than the intended meaning is an internetism that harms us all. I'm guilty of this too.. It's tricky though, because words have meaning- and that meaning really depends on context. Not just the context in which it's spoken, but also the context is the one speaking it. And often people online who think they're arguing are really just misunderstanding each other's definitions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] dom@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 month ago You're absolutely right. In this instance I mistakenly thought it was obvious for most that I did not mean im the strict literal definition. Oh well, no big deal permalink fedilink source parent [–] dom@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 month ago* (1 child) I mean it in the colloquial sense based on how well taken care of the people are. No I am not writing a dissertation. This is a discussion on a message board where people may use hyperbole to make their opinion clear permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Tiresia@slrpnk.net 1 point 1 month ago :Q. What do you call a third world country that takes care of its people as well as Scandinavia?A. Overdue for a CIA coup : permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago (2 children) Yes those were the original definitions but colloquial usage has shifted from the original meaning. Although these days the preferred terminology is developed/developing/under developed. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] quill7513@anarchist.nexus 7 points 1 month ago (1 child) under developed is only preferred in academic circles, particularly economics. most other places refer to such places as "over-exploited" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] moldy_rice@piefed.keyboardvagabond.com 1 point 1 month ago* Or "2/3rds world" (as in the majority of countries neither aligned with Soviet Communism nor US Capitalism and therefore not as exploited or industrialized/polluting) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] quill7513@anarchist.nexus 7 points 1 month ago (1 child) under developed is only preferred in academic circles, particularly economics. most other places refer to such places as "over-exploited" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] moldy_rice@piefed.keyboardvagabond.com 1 point 1 month ago* Or "2/3rds world" (as in the majority of countries neither aligned with Soviet Communism nor US Capitalism and therefore not as exploited or industrialized/polluting) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] moldy_rice@piefed.keyboardvagabond.com 1 point 1 month ago* Or "2/3rds world" (as in the majority of countries neither aligned with Soviet Communism nor US Capitalism and therefore not as exploited or industrialized/polluting) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] manuallybreathing@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago (3 children) I agree with you and you are correct but this is linguistic prescriptivism, which is one of the things the what is a woman crowd cling to but the other people using third wold country to mean allows sex abuse makes my skin crawl Examine your preconceived ideas, before they examine you permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] dom@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 month ago (2 children) I did not mean third world to mean that, but rather in the colloquial sense of how much a country takes care of its people. Understood that so many on this platform strictly care about historical definitions and prescriptive language policing though permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BillyTheKid2@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 month ago (1 child) Being more concerned with the words used than the intended meaning is an internetism that harms us all. I'm guilty of this too.. It's tricky though, because words have meaning- and that meaning really depends on context. Not just the context in which it's spoken, but also the context is the one speaking it. And often people online who think they're arguing are really just misunderstanding each other's definitions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] dom@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 month ago You're absolutely right. In this instance I mistakenly thought it was obvious for most that I did not mean im the strict literal definition. Oh well, no big deal permalink fedilink source parent
[–] dom@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 month ago (2 children) I did not mean third world to mean that, but rather in the colloquial sense of how much a country takes care of its people. Understood that so many on this platform strictly care about historical definitions and prescriptive language policing though permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BillyTheKid2@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 month ago (1 child) Being more concerned with the words used than the intended meaning is an internetism that harms us all. I'm guilty of this too.. It's tricky though, because words have meaning- and that meaning really depends on context. Not just the context in which it's spoken, but also the context is the one speaking it. And often people online who think they're arguing are really just misunderstanding each other's definitions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] dom@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 month ago You're absolutely right. In this instance I mistakenly thought it was obvious for most that I did not mean im the strict literal definition. Oh well, no big deal permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BillyTheKid2@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 month ago (1 child) Being more concerned with the words used than the intended meaning is an internetism that harms us all. I'm guilty of this too.. It's tricky though, because words have meaning- and that meaning really depends on context. Not just the context in which it's spoken, but also the context is the one speaking it. And often people online who think they're arguing are really just misunderstanding each other's definitions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] dom@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 month ago You're absolutely right. In this instance I mistakenly thought it was obvious for most that I did not mean im the strict literal definition. Oh well, no big deal permalink fedilink source parent
[–] dom@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 month ago You're absolutely right. In this instance I mistakenly thought it was obvious for most that I did not mean im the strict literal definition. Oh well, no big deal permalink fedilink source parent
[–] dom@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 month ago* (1 child) I mean it in the colloquial sense based on how well taken care of the people are. No I am not writing a dissertation. This is a discussion on a message board where people may use hyperbole to make their opinion clear permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Tiresia@slrpnk.net 1 point 1 month ago :Q. What do you call a third world country that takes care of its people as well as Scandinavia?A. Overdue for a CIA coup : permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Tiresia@slrpnk.net 1 point 1 month ago :Q. What do you call a third world country that takes care of its people as well as Scandinavia?A. Overdue for a CIA coup : permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TachyonTele_Esq@piefed.social 10 points 1 month ago First world is not a state of a country, it's a label the US and Europe created after WWII for themselves. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] shirro@aussie.zone 8 points 1 month ago No, they aren't and that is the sad thing. They could be a great country. They choose this instead. permalink fedilink source parent