IMO, The US has crumbling infrastructure, corrupt government, dangerous cities, and a lot of homelessness, among so many other problems. Hell, millions of people in the US don’t even have power right now.
What’s the difference?
IMO, The US has crumbling infrastructure, corrupt government, dangerous cities, and a lot of homelessness, among so many other problems. Hell, millions of people in the US don’t even have power right now.
What’s the difference?
1.2. and 3. worlds are terms from the cold war.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-world_model
Languages evolve over time, all dictionaries now have OPs use of the word as the first definition.
What definition and what dictionary?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/third world
Maybe saying all dictionaries is a bit much, I only checked a few.
USA doesn’t fit any of those definitions anyway.
I know what OP means, 3rd world is just not the right word.
USA is a banana republic
america makes banana republics. america is an empire
Oh 100%, I’m just saying his use of the word is in no way wrong like half the comments seem to imply. Everyone knew exactly what he meant and the definition is in most dictionaries.
This seems to pop up everytime the word is used and it’s a major pet peeve of mine.
My comment is only aimed at those that think third world only means the historical definition when that hasn’t been the case for at least two decades. The word third world is almost always used to mean developing country in day to day conversation.
I agree language is descriptive and not prescriptive, but it sounds like comparing two categories developing vs developed may be more apt and not three like an updated 3 world model would entail. Or maybe I just find it unsettling to call something a third without referencing a third of something.
I guess I still go by the original definition. There are other words that offer more detail anyway - kakistocracy, gerontocracy, corporatocracy, kleptocracy, etc.
Developing countries would be the synonym for third world in the definition used by OP.
Just because a lot of people use a phrase incorrectly doesn’t mean that it should be the accepted meaning.
A good example is “have your cake and eat it, too”. As the Unabomber famously fixated on, the phrase was originally “you can’t eat your cake and have it, too”. That saying actually makes sense and has meaning.
After a while people began to jokingly say it backwards, as “you can’t have your cake and eat it, too”. That was dandy, until people forgot that it was a joke. Now, years later, we’re all left with a saying that is fucking ridiculous sounding and but we keep saying it because we need the original phrase in our language.
Sure, language evolves and changes. Sometimes though, it’s a good idea to be sticklers about the rules.
It’s not rocket appliances