IMO, The US has crumbling infrastructure, corrupt government, dangerous cities, and a lot of homelessness, among so many other problems. Hell, millions of people in the US don’t even have power right now.
What’s the difference?
Submitted 4 months ago by WhatsHerBucket@lemmy.world to nostupidquestions@lemmy.world
IMO, The US has crumbling infrastructure, corrupt government, dangerous cities, and a lot of homelessness, among so many other problems. Hell, millions of people in the US don’t even have power right now.
What’s the difference?
Have you ever lived in an actual third world country?
You’ve doctored your first two points to avoid the fact that widespread corruption and crumbling infrastructure are in fact a feature of the USA. That said, obviously we are not a ‘third world’ country, nor a ‘developing or under-developed’ country. We are, instead in our own special category of fucked. We have an absolutely giant economy, but as we have decided politically to disinvest in all of our public sectors, either by privatization or under-funding, we are rapidly becoming dysfunctional. Add to that the huge global reclaiming of surplus value from workers wages to plutocrats profits, and we are, as is obvious, in a political crisis shared by the rest of the neoliberal democracies.
Nope, my first two points did not change from my edits. I never said corruption or crumbling infrastructure isn’t widespread in the US. I just said that not only do both exist in third world countries as well, but it’s even worse.
Love the privilege on display
Third World is an outdated term to refer to neutral countries in the cold war.
Unless there was a sudden dramatic shift in US geopolitical policy it would literally be impossible for it to be considered third world, as the very definition of third world as the definition inherently implies that the country in question is not allied with the US and the broader Western World.
Austria and Switzerland were third world, technically Yugoslavia was too. China became third world for a decent stretch after the sino-soviet split since the other half of the definition relies on not being allied with the Soviets in particular.
The use of third world as an insult for poor countries is a neo-colonial mindset that just takes for granted that anyone who isn’t an outright ally of the west or of the Russians must just be too poor to be worth considering as anything but uneducated people in dirt houses living subsistence lifestyles and who’s main interaction with an apparatus of state is occasionally seeing a humvee loaded up with the child soldiers of this warlord or that drive by.
1.2. and 3. worlds are terms from the cold war.
Languages evolve over time
Just because a lot of people use a phrase incorrectly doesn’t mean that it should be the accepted meaning.
A good example is “have your cake and eat it, too”. As the Unabomber famously fixated on, the phrase was originally “you can’t eat your cake and have it, too”. That saying actually makes sense and has meaning.
After a while people began to jokingly say it backwards, as “you can’t have your cake and eat it, too”. That was dandy, until people forgot that it was a joke. Now, years later, we’re all left with a saying that is fucking ridiculous sounding and but we keep saying it because we need the original phrase in our language.
Sure, language evolves and changes. Sometimes though, it’s a good idea to be sticklers about the rules.
I guess I still go by the original definition. There are other words that offer more detail anyway - kakistocracy, gerontocracy, corporatocracy, kleptocracy, etc.
I agree language is descriptive and not prescriptive, but it sounds like comparing two categories developing vs developed may be more apt and not three like a 3 world model would entail.
Because “first world” means NATO, not having a high standard of living.
Because the actual definition of a 3rd world country doesn’t define the USA as one…that’s why. You’re adding things that don’t fall into the definition.
I’m not trolling, I’m genuinely asking. What doesn’t fall into the definition of a third world country?
It’s a cold war term - basically, first world is the US and capitalist countries, second world is the Soviet and communist countries, and third world are the unaffiliated.
It’s slightly more nuanced than that, but that’s the basic summary.
1st world = US and allies. 2nd world = USSR and allies. 3rd world = everyone else.
Third world actually came from the cold war. There were the two major sides, but then there was a whole bunch of countries that weren’t really on either side. A whole “third world”. Of course, a lot of those countries were poor, so the term came to be associated with that, but there really isn’t a coherent definition of what it means to be a third world county. It has never really been about the standard of living for the average citizen though. More about whether a country is a bully or the bullied on the international stage, and we all know where the US falls on that spectrum.
It’s a term rooted in geo-political alliances and power standings, not economic status
If you mean “developped” vs “develloping”.
The HDI of the US is significantly lower than canada or northern europe, but still much higher than the world average.
Also, the “developed” vs. “developing” terminology doesn’t really have a category that fits a country that was previously developed and is now declining.
Neoliberal hubris
Because the definition of “first world” is “aligned with the US during the Cold War”, second world was aligned with the USSR, third world were countries not significant on the global stage. It correlates with but does not require poverty or dictatorships.
Several reasons.
Looks like the USA is still about $10 trillion higher in GDP than China.
Because the “third world” doesn’t mean what people think it means. It’s cold war terminology. First World is western aligned nations, Second World is Eastern bloc, Third World is nonaligned with the eastern or western nations. FBFW it meant nations that generally weren’t powerful or wealthy enough to be of interest to either East or West, and that poverty often meant they really had a lot of infrastructure and other problems. So we’re First World even if our country is turning into a shithole in some ways.
It’s mostly the stable government, infrastructure, currency and tech.
Pretty much why I’ve been calling the US a 2nd world country for years.
Also, “IMO”, those aren’t opinions, those are the facts, jack.
The country most famous for the bidet trend is France and currently swimming in the Seine is still looking impossible. If my infrastructure is so shitty and 3rd world here at least my lakes, rivers and water ways are all clean enough for me to use.
Every country has its problems, but calling the US 3rd world is just your brain being full of straight negative propaganda. Simultaneously not every French River is unusable or every country filled with Bidets an actual mark of their progress. Go experience a country first before just talking shit.
Also, stable government?? Literally our biggest problem is that our government has been so stable that it has changed for 240 years.
Those are points.
None of them are particularly relevant or accurate, but at least you wrote them out.
The US has the clean water act - correct.
“at least my lakes, rivers and water ways are all clean enough for me to use”. - very, very wrong.
Many of your waterways are so polluted that they regularly catch fire and are linked to higher cancer rates
Then there’s “The country most famous for the bidet trend is France and currently swimming in the Seine is still looking impossible”,
which, if we
ignore Japan
pretend fecal matter is only unsanitary if you clean yourself with water(incorrect)
and follow your implication that because bidets were popularized in one country, part of a single river in their country is historically dangerously polluted(incorrect),
makes as much sense as
“The country most famous for TP is the US and currently the Mississippi, Ohio River and Savannah are and will be polluted for decades to come, plus the Cuyahoga river and their drinking water catches on fire sometimes.”
How about
“If my infrastructure is so shitty”
No “ifs” about it, American infrastructure is crumbling. Your power grids regularly fail and are vulnerable because of their age, your bridges are collapsing, people can’t easily travel the country because of undeveloped mass transit, your health care system has failed its population, and you can’t house or feed even your veterans, let alone large parts of your population.
Those are all direct evidence of a critical failure in US infrastructure.
“Also, stable government??” Putting aside that your standard for stability is
“our government has been so stable that it has changed for 240 years.”(I have no idea what you’re going for here),
Your corrupt presidents, senators, congressmen, governors and citizens regularly cry out for secession and civil war, regularly attempt to defraud your electoral system and literally attempted a violent coup to overthrow your governmental seat of power just three years ago.
Trump, liable for rape and treason, constitutionally prohibited from running for president, might be re-elected, despite his admiration for and aspiration to emulate authoritarian regimes(and so many other faults).
Not the picture of stability. The picture of instability, in fact.
I resent this, as Brit. Toilet paper itself is perfectly fine - it’s those people that have to wipe their own arse that are heathen.
Okaymatewanker, yer luxury smearing is still smearing.
Unclean.
Yyyuck
Pretty much why I’ve been calling the US a 2nd world country for years.
FYI, “second world” means communist – or more specifically, Warsaw Pact. Only delusional MAGAs would call the US that.
The US is a 3rd world country.
Bidets are truly the line between civilization and barbarism
Done with my business!
Should I use my own hand covered by a strip of absorbent tissue paper to smear waste over my skin?
Or wash it away with water without touching my waste with my hand?
What a dilemma.
I applaud this because it will enrage a lot of Americans, who through no fault of their own , live in a better media bubble than most - although they are by no means alone.
Any “1st world” people are prone to believing the government. In Eastern Europe, Latham an other places - people are much more realistic about what Government is and what to expect.
Anyway, America is not 3rd by any means, but it is at risk of becoming a failed state .
According to Professor C. GeePeeTee :
A failed state is a political entity characterized by the collapse or extreme dysfunction of its governmental institutions, leading to the inability to perform basic governance functions and provide public services. Key features of a failed state include:
1. Loss of Control: The government loses control over its territory, and non-state actors such as warlords, militias, or criminal organizations may take over. 2. Weak Institutions: Public institutions such as the judiciary, police, and civil service become ineffective or nonexistent. 3. Political Instability: Persistent internal conflict, violence, and political turmoil prevail. 4. Economic Collapse: Severe economic decline, high unemployment, and lack of infrastructure and public services. 5. Human Rights Violations: Systematic human rights abuses and widespread lack of law and order. 6. Mass Migration: Large-scale displacement of people due to violence, persecution, or economic hardship.
I wouldn’t say any of these are slam dunks as of today, but for 1,2,3 a case can be made I think.
So IMHO it’s hanging on by its fingernails at the moment. It’s hard to asses how strong those fingernails are. As long a people can enjoy NFL and McDonalds, there’s a chance. If that should change, more will be active politically on one side or the others.
Because of their GDP. People are incredibly rich there. But one false move and there are no safety nets. You can get bankrupt in an instant.
I 100% agree; the thing is they measure this stuff by the mean so a few outliers (rich districts or billionaires) make things look reasonable by number.
So it has to do with the wealth of a country?
You have fifty people in here telling you exactly why. How are you still confused?
Because of their modern and huge airforce and army, along with all the big tech companies, and Hollywood.
The PR image of America is quite nice. The reality, not that great.
Where are you getting this from?
The Gucci belt
I don’t like the government system, I don’t like the police, I don’t like anything to do with this country’s government. I just don’t like it, because… they’re sneaky, like I said - they’re deceitful, they’re lying, they’re cheats, they rip the people off. That’s the American government for you. America is a third world country, and people don’t recognise it… and I think that that’s pretty god damn sad, that they don’t recognise their own country as a third world, third rate, third class slum
Because the majority of old people are rich and there are still the echoes of a real middle class. Let’s see if Trump gets elected and everyone with the cash to do so flees his outrageous proposed tariffs.
digitallibrary.un.org/record/1629536?v=pdf UN report from 2018 so pre-pandemic.
TIL: Way too many people think it’s still the Cold War. Language changes people.
Yup, it does change. It was attempted to mean “poor” and it’s been reappropriated since
If you’re trying to use modern language, it’s “developed” and “developing”
You mean global north/ global south.
Developing and developed are considered negatively.
Language changes people.
In what ways are people changed by language?
Did you figure it out yet?
Because the original concept of “ordinal world country” came out of the Cold War:
However, since then, understanding of the term in popular discourse has somewhat shifted from geopolitical affiliation to a vague amalgam of socioeconomic status/GDP/“are you a pariah state”/etc.
On a less serious note: the US is really just several dozen 3rd world countries in a trenchcoat essentially relying on (but also politically backstabbing) the economic product of like 5 or 6 states that could be first world economies in their own right
Personally, terms like ‘first world’ and ‘third world’ are pointless to me.
No country is without flaws, I’d say, because most countries are inhabited by people.
Cause derp a derp a dee.
Add political violence to your list.
hotpot8toe@lemmy.world 4 months ago
It’s obvious you don’t know anything about third world countries and probably have never been to one. I am sure that there are problems in your country to complain about, but coming from an actual third-world country, calling the US third world is just plain naive. The average monthly wage in my country is 25$ a month, not to mention the war and corruption. The US usually ranks 25-50 on world corruption indices. Third world countries rank 100-200. If you think US has corruption. You haven’t seen shit
otp@sh.itjust.works 4 months ago
That would mean that the US is more corrupt. I’m pretty sure that’s not what you meant, so I’m just adding this to help.
I don’t know if it’s a language thing or a regional thing (or just a regular mistake), but “rank” usually means that 1 is the most, 2 is the second most, and 100th would be less corrupt than 1, 2, etc.
hotpot8toe@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Interesting, I didn’t know that. I just remember my country being at the bottom that’s why I said it that way.
I just looked it up, corruption index: www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2023 places most corrupt at the bottom. But I think you are right because corruption ranking should have the most corrupt on the top. I.e you are 1st at corruption