you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 50 points 18 hours ago (19 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 15 hours ago (4 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 10 hours ago (3 children)

    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 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (2 children)

    "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)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 child)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 hour ago

    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"

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 14 hours ago (13 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 13 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 hours ago (8 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 10 hours ago (4 children)

    "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
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 hour ago* (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 hour ago* (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 51 minutes ago* (last edited 7 minutes 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

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

    That's not the definition of first world... Switzerland is a third world country by definition

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

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 hour ago

    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)

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -7 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (2 children)

    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 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 5 hours ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment