365
Kidnapped Teenager Rescued After Reaching Out For Help In Among Us - The 17-year-old victim was rescued after contacting a player they met in Among Us, over 500 days after they were kidnapped (kotaku.com)
submitted 1 day ago by to c/pcgaming@lemmy.ca
149 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -5 points 1 day ago* (9 children)

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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 1 day ago (6 children)

    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 😭

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (5 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago (4 children)

    “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 😭)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

    “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…?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago* (1 child)

    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 :/

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago

    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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 day ago

    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!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago*

    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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent