5 ms·
Nope, the difference between first, second and third world is whether a country aligns to the USA block, the USSR bloc or remain unaligned and pretend to stay o
by eecc 9y ago
Nope, the difference between first, second and third world is whether a country aligns to the USA block, the USSR bloc or remain unaligned and pretend to stay out of the Cold War stand-off. That Third World Non-aligned countries tended to be piss-poor, plundered failed states, and theaters for proxy wars between USA and USSR helped the confusion that the classification is of economic development. It’s not
- adventured 9y agoYou're using an old defintion that is very rarely used today. It's now considered archaic, relegated to the dustbin of history. In fact, you're attempting to educate the parent precisely because of how old and out of use that defintion is. Further, it's so out of use, the most common dictionary references to eg first world, are always about level of development / industrialization and not cold war political alignments. First, second and third world is now drastically more commonly used as a reference to the level of development.
- eecc 9y agoIt’s not an “old”, it’s “the” definition for this expression. One thing is to make mistakes in genuine good faith and appreciate when something new comes across one’s way. Another is to brush away anything that points to one’s mistakes. It’s called arrogance. Oh and BTW, understanding that “1, 2, 3rd world” are not a success scale enshrining the winner position to one’s own moral system does help a lot in not coming through as an arrogant fool.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]