4 ms·

The same kind of terminology debate comes up when people use "third world" to mean "developing countries" and, when corrected, they just declare the meaning cha

The same kind of terminology debate comes up when people use "third world" to mean "developing countries" and, when corrected, they just declare the meaning changed. So if that's how we're supposed to roll then why wouldn't the same logic apply here?

kodz4 7y ago
“Our language is an imperfect instrument created by ancient and ignorant men. It is an animistic language that invites us to talk about stability and constants, about similarities and normal and kinds, about magical transformations, quick cures, simple problems, and final solutions. Yet the world we try to symbolize with this language is a world of process, change, differences, dimensions, functions, relationships, growths, interactions, developing, learning, coping, complexity. And the mismatch of our ever-changing world and our relatively static language forms is part of our problem.” - Wendell Johnson
- mc32 7y ago
  Language isn’t planned and created. It evolves. The problem isn’t language, but how it’s used. A dire statement from a doctor and the same statement from an unsympathetic actor comes across differently. That’s not quite the fault of language.
happytoexplain 7y ago
I thought "third world" was an informal and occasionally derogatory synonym for "developing countries". Is that not the case?
- Tomte 7y ago
  Originally not. The meaning as it existed during the Cold War was "block-free". USA/NATO were the First World. USSR/Warsaw Pact was the Second World. Everyone else was Third World. That definition includes countries like Switzerland, which sounds very strange today, because the meaning has changed to precisely the one you have in mind.
  - jandrese 7y ago
    The dissolution of the Warsaw Pact meant the old definition was a bit meaningless, hence the shift in connotation where "First World" is a glorious modern stable democracy and "Third World" is "shithole." That said, "developing country" isn't necessarily the most precise phrase either, since many of those countries are either keeping the status quo or are actively decaying due to environmental disaster, war, famine, etc... Also, when you say "developing country" what a lot of people still heard is "shithole". Still, it's the preferred phrase and the inherent optimism built into it does count for a little.
- the-dude 7y ago
  I read somewhere in the past few years "third world" is actually a political term. And the The third world being defined as being not aligned with either the first or second world. Where the first world would be the US influence sphere, and the second world being USSR influence sphere.

kodz4 7y ago

“Our language is an imperfect instrument created by ancient and ignorant men. It is an animistic language that invites us to talk about stability and constants, about similarities and normal and kinds, about magical transformations, quick cures, simple problems, and final solutions. Yet the world we try to symbolize with this language is a world of process, change, differences, dimensions, functions, relationships, growths, interactions, developing, learning, coping, complexity. And the mismatch of our ever-changing world and our relatively static language forms is part of our problem.” - Wendell Johnson

mc32 7y ago
Language isn’t planned and created. It evolves. The problem isn’t language, but how it’s used. A dire statement from a doctor and the same statement from an unsympathetic actor comes across differently. That’s not quite the fault of language.

happytoexplain 7y ago

I thought "third world" was an informal and occasionally derogatory synonym for "developing countries". Is that not the case?

Tomte 7y ago
Originally not. The meaning as it existed during the Cold War was "block-free". USA/NATO were the First World. USSR/Warsaw Pact was the Second World. Everyone else was Third World. That definition includes countries like Switzerland, which sounds very strange today, because the meaning has changed to precisely the one you have in mind.
- jandrese 7y ago
  The dissolution of the Warsaw Pact meant the old definition was a bit meaningless, hence the shift in connotation where "First World" is a glorious modern stable democracy and "Third World" is "shithole." That said, "developing country" isn't necessarily the most precise phrase either, since many of those countries are either keeping the status quo or are actively decaying due to environmental disaster, war, famine, etc... Also, when you say "developing country" what a lot of people still heard is "shithole". Still, it's the preferred phrase and the inherent optimism built into it does count for a little.
the-dude 7y ago
I read somewhere in the past few years "third world" is actually a political term. And the The third world being defined as being not aligned with either the first or second world. Where the first world would be the US influence sphere, and the second world being USSR influence sphere.