3 ms·

There are plenty of places. Mexico for example where the narcos have capabilities similar to the mexican military and In brazil we have little kids with automat

There are plenty of places. Mexico for example where the narcos have capabilities similar to the mexican military and In brazil we have little kids with automatic rifles roaming the favelas.

yeetawayhn 6y ago
You missed the "developed countries" dogwhistle, which usually means rich and white nations.
- leetcrew 6y ago
  is there a better way of describing the group of countries where it is unlikely to encounter criminals with lmgs mounted to pickup trucks?
  - yeetawayhn 6y ago
    >is there a better way of describing the group of countries where it is unlikely to encounter criminals with lmgs mounted to pickup trucks? The dogwhistle has now turned into a full on bullhorn.
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    "first and second world" does a pretty good job covering it since there's plenty of nations that are formerly in the USSR's sphere of influence that aren't exactly rich but don't have to worry about cartel type violence. Pretty much nobody likes to think that way though because the majority of the time "developed nations" are brought up it's in the context of how the US should be more like western Europe and it's usually ideologically convenient to leave Eastern Europe out of those kinds of comparisons.
    - leetcrew 6y ago
      "first and second world" describes more or less the same set of countries (perhaps modulo some eastern european countries like you said), but doesn't it have most of the same baggage as "developed nations"? as I understand it, the problem with "developed nations" is that it raises the question "developed compared to what?". in other words, it implicitly sets the west as the standard against which "developed" is measured. doesn't first/second/third world center the western perspective in pretty much the same way?
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  "Europe, but only the parts I like"
- freeone3000 6y ago
  It specifically does mean rich, but includes China and Japan and South Korea, which are not white. The description of economic development was specifically to exclude race and political affiliation from the equation while still capturing the relevant metrics -- poverty causes violent crime.

There are plenty of places. Mexico for example where the narcos have capabilities similar to the mexican military and In brazil we have little kids with automatic rifles roaming the favelas.

yeetawayhn 6y ago

You missed the "developed countries" dogwhistle, which usually means rich and white nations.

leetcrew 6y ago
is there a better way of describing the group of countries where it is unlikely to encounter criminals with lmgs mounted to pickup trucks?
- yeetawayhn 6y ago
  >is there a better way of describing the group of countries where it is unlikely to encounter criminals with lmgs mounted to pickup trucks? The dogwhistle has now turned into a full on bullhorn.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  "first and second world" does a pretty good job covering it since there's plenty of nations that are formerly in the USSR's sphere of influence that aren't exactly rich but don't have to worry about cartel type violence. Pretty much nobody likes to think that way though because the majority of the time "developed nations" are brought up it's in the context of how the US should be more like western Europe and it's usually ideologically convenient to leave Eastern Europe out of those kinds of comparisons.
  - leetcrew 6y ago
    "first and second world" describes more or less the same set of countries (perhaps modulo some eastern european countries like you said), but doesn't it have most of the same baggage as "developed nations"? as I understand it, the problem with "developed nations" is that it raises the question "developed compared to what?". in other words, it implicitly sets the west as the standard against which "developed" is measured. doesn't first/second/third world center the western perspective in pretty much the same way?
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
"Europe, but only the parts I like"
freeone3000 6y ago
It specifically does mean rich, but includes China and Japan and South Korea, which are not white. The description of economic development was specifically to exclude race and political affiliation from the equation while still capturing the relevant metrics -- poverty causes violent crime.