• TheInsane42@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      At least it’s no democracy. (being forced between 2 evils sponsored by companies is no democracy)

      • GBU_28@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Insane comment.

        America has big issues but to compare it’s magnitude of issues, and quantity population affected is a slap in the face to those experiencing life in a real “third world” country.

        • Aux@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s typical first world problem - oh no, can’t buy a new iPhone this year, I’m so poor…

      • xX_fnord_Xx@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I recall a time in my youth when a young American could work full time and afford an apartment without splitting it with three roommates.

    • nyoooom@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Third world was based on who participated in WW2, third world not taking part

    • Crass Spektakel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The Second World would have been the soviet block. There is no second world today. The third world though is real. By definition the US will be always first world as the first world is defined as the pro-wester with heavy industry. No matter how people live in this world.

      • Rambi@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t think very many people use those definitions for first/ second/ third world anymore. The colloquial definitions of “first world = rich second world = not so rich but not so poor and third world = poor” are more useful anyway due to as you say the Soviet Union not existing anymore so nobody can align with it.

        • Crass Spektakel@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, back in the cold war that was actually the common perception anyway even while it was initially meant differently. So no harm done using this easy adaption.