• sbird@retrofed.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    “First world” just meant the states that were America-aligned (so by definition, the U.S. goes here).

    The “world” term is stupid and nobody should use it anymore (it implies that “third world” countries are lesser than America’s allies)

    Developing / developed economies is what more people use nowadays, and the U.S. would be classified as developed, though a binary is still not too helpful given there are lots of in-betweeens (the big elephant in the room, China, argues it should remain classified as a developing nation because, as it turns out, there is wealth inequality there too + billionaires taking too much of the pie, so a large chunk of people still live under conditions closer to developing countries, while others say that China should be a developed nation given they have the second strongest economy)

    • plantfanatic@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      That’s the American centric definition, yes. Why are you continuing to choose an antiquated and selfish definition?

      The only ones I see using it are Americans, so they can continue to believe they aren’t third world.

      Only Americans use that word. The rest of the world knows how selfish and wrong it is.

      Proof

      • sbird@retrofed.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        I literally said the term is stupid and nobody should use it. I’m not advocating for it because it isn’t a good definition. Also, having developing nations classified as a part of the “lesser world” is not good at all!

        Again, I would avoid using “first world” and “third world”