you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 57 points 15 hours ago (26 children)

The victim is from Utah, rescued in Oregon. It sounds like something from a third-world country, but it happens everywhere.

  • source
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 45 points 15 hours ago (10 children)

    I mean, pretty sure the US shouldn’t be considered first world anymore. So you’re still right.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

    The us made up first and third world. It's the definition of first world country.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 8 hours ago (1 child)

    Stable economy, and high standard of living is missing, so they made it up, but they sure don’t met the bar anymore.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 7 hours ago

    "First world" just mean 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)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 11 hours ago (6 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 hours ago (2 children)

    Stable economy, and high standard of living are missing dude.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 7 hours ago

    "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)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -5 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 child)

    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".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 14 hours ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 13 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (11 children)

    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) 🤘🏼

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 13 hours ago* (5 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 hours ago* (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 7 hours ago

    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 😭

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 13 hours ago (2 children)

    I never said or even implied that the US (and all/any others who use[d] it) would qualify for the term, FWIW.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 13 hours ago (4 children)

    Most of the time “Global South” adequately covers it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 13 hours ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 11 hours ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 4 hours ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent