5 ms·

By definition the US can't be like a 3rd world country (hint: 3rd world country is not what I think you mean to say [1]) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third

By definition the US can't be like a 3rd world country (hint: 3rd world country is not what I think you mean to say [1]) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World

Orangeair 13y ago
Since we're smugly throwing around Wikipedia articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simile
- kartikkumar 13y ago
  Had you seen my body language when I posted the comment, you might not have decided that it was made out of any sense of smugness. NOTE: Since my comments in this thread were downvoted, implying that they were not taken in the spirit they were intended, my contribution to this thread should be considered obsolete. I'll leave my original comments in place to serve as a reminder to myself to be careful about what I say around here in future. [OBSOLETE]
  - arjie 13y ago
    No need to play the martyr. It's a tangential issue. If you brought it up in conversation people would say something like "ha ha yeah, you know what I mean" and continue discussing the original topic. There it quickly dissipates because voice is quickly damped but here it is just noise that takes time to be damped out.
    - kartikkumar 13y ago
      I absolutely am not playing the martyr. I raised an issue that I felt was of importance. The fact that others disagree is something I'm willing to live with, but it by no means sways me.
sourceless 13y ago
First, no, key word being 'like' - it's a comparison. Second, yes, you're right, but no need to be a pedant, the meaning original commenter employed is widely accepted and understood.
- kartikkumar 13y ago
  Understood as what? I'm presuming you're implying that "3rd world country" == "country in the developing world", as it's often used. Although you might consider it to be fully acceptable, there are many that disagree that that equality be taken as a norm, including the head of the World Bank [1]. Fact of the matter is that use of the "3rd world" as a descriptor is contentious at the very least and I opted to draw attention to this fact. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/14/third-world-term-should-b_n_537814.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/14/third-world-term-sh...
csomar 13y ago
I'm not sure why this guy was down-voted. There is a big (and maybe worldwide spread) confusion about the definition of first/second/third world. For example, Qatar is a third-world and it's pretty well developed. Turkey is a first-world and yet it's an under-developed country.
- a_bonobo 13y ago
  As it says in the article: >Due to the complex history of evolving meanings and contexts, there is no clear or agreed upon definition of the Third World.

Orangeair 13y ago

Since we're smugly throwing around Wikipedia articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simile

kartikkumar 13y ago
Had you seen my body language when I posted the comment, you might not have decided that it was made out of any sense of smugness. NOTE: Since my comments in this thread were downvoted, implying that they were not taken in the spirit they were intended, my contribution to this thread should be considered obsolete. I'll leave my original comments in place to serve as a reminder to myself to be careful about what I say around here in future. [OBSOLETE]
- arjie 13y ago
  No need to play the martyr. It's a tangential issue. If you brought it up in conversation people would say something like "ha ha yeah, you know what I mean" and continue discussing the original topic. There it quickly dissipates because voice is quickly damped but here it is just noise that takes time to be damped out.
  - kartikkumar 13y ago
    I absolutely am not playing the martyr. I raised an issue that I felt was of importance. The fact that others disagree is something I'm willing to live with, but it by no means sways me.

sourceless 13y ago

First, no, key word being 'like' - it's a comparison. Second, yes, you're right, but no need to be a pedant, the meaning original commenter employed is widely accepted and understood.

kartikkumar 13y ago
Understood as what? I'm presuming you're implying that "3rd world country" == "country in the developing world", as it's often used. Although you might consider it to be fully acceptable, there are many that disagree that that equality be taken as a norm, including the head of the World Bank [1]. Fact of the matter is that use of the "3rd world" as a descriptor is contentious at the very least and I opted to draw attention to this fact. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/14/third-world-term-should-b_n_537814.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/14/third-world-term-sh...

csomar 13y ago

I'm not sure why this guy was down-voted. There is a big (and maybe worldwide spread) confusion about the definition of first/second/third world. For example, Qatar is a third-world and it's pretty well developed. Turkey is a first-world and yet it's an under-developed country.

a_bonobo 13y ago
As it says in the article: >Due to the complex history of evolving meanings and contexts, there is no clear or agreed upon definition of the Third World.