3 ms·

My friend, the US isn't a first-world country. Just look at how many homeless and struggling poor people there are compared to the billionaires and the rest of

My friend, the US isn't a first-world country. Just look at how many homeless and struggling poor people there are compared to the billionaires and the rest of the uber rich in their gated communities. And the number of shootings, mass shootings, incarceration rate per capita (highest in the world), and who is in prisons (elderly minorities serving mandatory sentences for petty crimes). In Austin TX, nonviolent crimes are no longer investigated or prosecuted for the most part. I would sooner compare the US to Brazil, complete with smash-and-grab gang robberies. It won't be long before gangs mass rob the public in decaying cities like Austin, Chicago, and Detroit. Just like Brazil or Mexico: lawless, corrupt, failed states. Filter your own water at home if you can because the tap water in the US isn't trustworthy (chloramines at a minimum). I take my 5 and 7 gallon containers to the water store for filling. It's very efficient. I don't know why you're comparing RO to bottled water. PS: It's spelled "harmful" and "wasteful".

dragonwriter 5y ago
> the US isn't a first-world country. If you are going to use the outdated, broken, and useless-for-the-current-context first/second/third-world model at all you should realize that the US is the country with whom relations define whether a country is first-world; it is one for two fixed poles of the model. If you want to say “the US is a capitalist country with intense concentration of wealth and too many people in poverty given the aggregate level of prosperity”, that's valid but even when the first-, etc., world model was current and relevant, that description was most typical of the first-world (including the US of the time). The second- and third-world had their own, different, typical problems.
- errcorrectcode 5y ago
  Invent some new words and bikeshed about them. Let me know how that goes.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Invent some new words and bikeshed about them. There are plenty of existing words whose use wouldn't be wrong and that are widely accepted. I mean, if you mean to say the US looks more like a less-developed country than a developed one, you could use exactly those words, that are currently in wide use, and have been in use since the geopolitical first/second/third-world model was current and relevant, for relative economic development levels.
    - errcorrectcode 5y ago
      Whatever, thought police. Have a wonderful day.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> the US isn't a first-world country. If you are going to use the outdated, broken, and useless-for-the-current-context first/second/third-world model at all you should realize that the US is the country with whom relations define whether a country is first-world; it is one for two fixed poles of the model. If you want to say “the US is a capitalist country with intense concentration of wealth and too many people in poverty given the aggregate level of prosperity”, that's valid but even when the first-, etc., world model was current and relevant, that description was most typical of the first-world (including the US of the time). The second- and third-world had their own, different, typical problems.

errcorrectcode 5y ago
Invent some new words and bikeshed about them. Let me know how that goes.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Invent some new words and bikeshed about them. There are plenty of existing words whose use wouldn't be wrong and that are widely accepted. I mean, if you mean to say the US looks more like a less-developed country than a developed one, you could use exactly those words, that are currently in wide use, and have been in use since the geopolitical first/second/third-world model was current and relevant, for relative economic development levels.
  - errcorrectcode 5y ago
    Whatever, thought police. Have a wonderful day.