4 ms·
The conclusion of the article you cited is that the authors can't find a way to conversationally distinguish between wealthy and poor nations without somebody b
by unit91 9y ago
The conclusion of the article you cited is that the authors can't find a way to conversationally distinguish between wealthy and poor nations without somebody being offended.
I think this is a great illustration of the fact that, although some people intend to be derisive in their speech, we shouldn't assume that any designation whatsoever is intended as derision. That is, everybody needs to chill and assume the other person is making a good-faith attempt to be reasonably polite until proven otherwise.
- nrjames 9y agoFair enough. As somebody who has spent the past 15 years working in global health and international development, I can tell you that "third world" is considered pretty pejorative these days. While there might not be a convenient way to linguistically group together all those "friendly third world countries," I suggest you avoid using the term "third world."
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- richardwhiuk 9y agoCan you suggest an alternative? LEDCs? Developing countries? Newly industrialized countries? TPLACs (in jest)?
- nrjames 9y agoI think your best bet is just to refer to regions or specific countries. The "developing" part of developing countries creates a false dichotomy. The World Bank doesn't even use it anymore (https://qz.com/685626/the-world-bank-is-eliminating-the-term-developing-country-from-its-data-vocabulary/ https://qz.com/685626/the-world-bank-is-eliminating-the-term...). Just say South East Asia or Sub-Saharan Africa, or whatever you mean.