▲ 282 ▼ TIL about V-Coding the systemic rape of trans women in US prisons to try to “calm” violent men. (en.wikipedia.org) submitted 2 days ago* by TRAHR@quokk.au to c/til@lemmy.ca 120 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] dom@lemmy.ca 65 points 2 days ago (18 children) Jesus America is a third world country. permalink fedilink source hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] shirro@aussie.zone 8 points 1 day ago No, they aren't and that is the sad thing. They could be a great country. They choose this instead. permalink fedilink source parent [–] moldy_rice@piefed.keyboardvagabond.com 41 points 2 days ago (13 children) No. The US is very much a first world country. It's literally the definition. It is the US. And this is what a capitalist country does. This is what first world countries look like. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [+] dom@lemmy.ca -8 points 2 days ago (12 children) Nah. The Scandinavian countries are what I consider true first world. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] ContriteErudite@lemmy.world 36 points 2 days ago (10 children) Help us out: what do you think “First World,” “Second World,” and “Third World” actually mean? The terms referred to cold war political alignment: the U.S.-led bloc, the Soviet-led bloc, and countries aligned with neither. It was not a tidy ranking from rich and civilized to poor and backward. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] manuallybreathing@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 day ago (3 children) I agree with you and you are correct but this is linguistic prescriptivism, which is one of the things the what is a woman crowd cling to but the other people using third wold country to mean allows sex abuse makes my skin crawl Examine your preconceived ideas, before they examine you permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] dom@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 day ago (2 children) I did not mean third world to mean that, but rather in the colloquial sense of how much a country takes care of its people. Understood that so many on this platform strictly care about historical definitions and prescriptive language policing though permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BillyTheKid2@lemmy.ca 1 point 22 hours ago (1 child) Being more concerned with the words used than the intended meaning is an internetism that harms us all. I'm guilty of this too.. It's tricky though, because words have meaning- and that meaning really depends on context. Not just the context in which it's spoken, but also the context is the one speaking it. And often people online who think they're arguing are really just misunderstanding each other's definitions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] dom@lemmy.ca 2 points 18 hours ago You're absolutely right. In this instance I mistakenly thought it was obvious for most that I did not mean im the strict literal definition. Oh well, no big deal permalink fedilink source parent [–] CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago (3 children) Yes those were the original definitions but colloquial usage has shifted from the original meaning. Although these days the preferred terminology is developed/developing/under developed. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] quill7513@anarchist.nexus 7 points 1 day ago (2 children) under developed is only preferred in academic circles, particularly economics. most other places refer to such places as "over-exploited" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] moldy_rice@piefed.keyboardvagabond.com 1 point 1 day ago* Or "2/3rds world" (as in the majority of countries neither aligned with Soviet Communism nor US Capitalism and therefore not as exploited or industrialized/polluting) permalink fedilink source parent [+] PostsFromWikipedia@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 day ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] dom@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 day ago* (1 child) I mean it in the colloquial sense based on how well taken care of the people are. No I am not writing a dissertation. This is a discussion on a message board where people may use hyperbole to make their opinion clear permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Tiresia@slrpnk.net 1 point 12 hours ago :Q. What do you call a third world country that takes care of its people as well as Scandinavia?A. Overdue for a CIA coup : permalink fedilink source parent [–] TachyonTele_Esq@piefed.social 10 points 1 day ago First world is not a state of a country, it's a label the US and Europe created after WWII for themselves. permalink fedilink source parent [–] KingPorkChop@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 day ago (1 child) Jesus America is a third world country backwards shithole filled with evil fucktards. FTFY permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Tiresia@slrpnk.net 1 point 12 hours ago :CW: nitpicking Jesus taking the lord's name in vain or cultural appropriation America The USA, not the rest of America backwards reproduces the notion of the linear progression of civilization, a liberal colonialist fabrication shithole a shithole implies a shitter outside of it, but the US is not being shat upon from the outside filled with implies there are no others, which isn't true evil binary thinking and possible essentialism -tards slur against the mentally disabled is a fuck. Correct, v-coding is rape. Wow, I knew the USA structurally empowers people to engage in great cruelty, but I hadn't imagined this in particular. It's probably recency bias but this feels like a new low. : permalink fedilink source parent [–] alapakala@quokk.au 13 points 2 days ago 🇺🇲🧑🚀🔫🧑🚀has always been. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] shirro@aussie.zone 8 points 1 day ago No, they aren't and that is the sad thing. They could be a great country. They choose this instead. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] moldy_rice@piefed.keyboardvagabond.com 41 points 2 days ago (13 children) No. The US is very much a first world country. It's literally the definition. It is the US. And this is what a capitalist country does. This is what first world countries look like. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [+] dom@lemmy.ca -8 points 2 days ago (12 children) Nah. The Scandinavian countries are what I consider true first world. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] ContriteErudite@lemmy.world 36 points 2 days ago (10 children) Help us out: what do you think “First World,” “Second World,” and “Third World” actually mean? The terms referred to cold war political alignment: the U.S.-led bloc, the Soviet-led bloc, and countries aligned with neither. It was not a tidy ranking from rich and civilized to poor and backward. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] manuallybreathing@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 day ago (3 children) I agree with you and you are correct but this is linguistic prescriptivism, which is one of the things the what is a woman crowd cling to but the other people using third wold country to mean allows sex abuse makes my skin crawl Examine your preconceived ideas, before they examine you permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] dom@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 day ago (2 children) I did not mean third world to mean that, but rather in the colloquial sense of how much a country takes care of its people. Understood that so many on this platform strictly care about historical definitions and prescriptive language policing though permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BillyTheKid2@lemmy.ca 1 point 22 hours ago (1 child) Being more concerned with the words used than the intended meaning is an internetism that harms us all. I'm guilty of this too.. It's tricky though, because words have meaning- and that meaning really depends on context. Not just the context in which it's spoken, but also the context is the one speaking it. And often people online who think they're arguing are really just misunderstanding each other's definitions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] dom@lemmy.ca 2 points 18 hours ago You're absolutely right. In this instance I mistakenly thought it was obvious for most that I did not mean im the strict literal definition. Oh well, no big deal permalink fedilink source parent [–] CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago (3 children) Yes those were the original definitions but colloquial usage has shifted from the original meaning. Although these days the preferred terminology is developed/developing/under developed. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] quill7513@anarchist.nexus 7 points 1 day ago (2 children) under developed is only preferred in academic circles, particularly economics. most other places refer to such places as "over-exploited" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] moldy_rice@piefed.keyboardvagabond.com 1 point 1 day ago* Or "2/3rds world" (as in the majority of countries neither aligned with Soviet Communism nor US Capitalism and therefore not as exploited or industrialized/polluting) permalink fedilink source parent [+] PostsFromWikipedia@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 day ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] dom@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 day ago* (1 child) I mean it in the colloquial sense based on how well taken care of the people are. No I am not writing a dissertation. This is a discussion on a message board where people may use hyperbole to make their opinion clear permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Tiresia@slrpnk.net 1 point 12 hours ago :Q. What do you call a third world country that takes care of its people as well as Scandinavia?A. Overdue for a CIA coup : permalink fedilink source parent [–] TachyonTele_Esq@piefed.social 10 points 1 day ago First world is not a state of a country, it's a label the US and Europe created after WWII for themselves. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] dom@lemmy.ca -8 points 2 days ago (12 children) Nah. The Scandinavian countries are what I consider true first world. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] ContriteErudite@lemmy.world 36 points 2 days ago (10 children) Help us out: what do you think “First World,” “Second World,” and “Third World” actually mean? The terms referred to cold war political alignment: the U.S.-led bloc, the Soviet-led bloc, and countries aligned with neither. It was not a tidy ranking from rich and civilized to poor and backward. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] manuallybreathing@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 day ago (3 children) I agree with you and you are correct but this is linguistic prescriptivism, which is one of the things the what is a woman crowd cling to but the other people using third wold country to mean allows sex abuse makes my skin crawl Examine your preconceived ideas, before they examine you permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] dom@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 day ago (2 children) I did not mean third world to mean that, but rather in the colloquial sense of how much a country takes care of its people. Understood that so many on this platform strictly care about historical definitions and prescriptive language policing though permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BillyTheKid2@lemmy.ca 1 point 22 hours ago (1 child) Being more concerned with the words used than the intended meaning is an internetism that harms us all. I'm guilty of this too.. It's tricky though, because words have meaning- and that meaning really depends on context. Not just the context in which it's spoken, but also the context is the one speaking it. And often people online who think they're arguing are really just misunderstanding each other's definitions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] dom@lemmy.ca 2 points 18 hours ago You're absolutely right. In this instance I mistakenly thought it was obvious for most that I did not mean im the strict literal definition. Oh well, no big deal permalink fedilink source parent [–] CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago (3 children) Yes those were the original definitions but colloquial usage has shifted from the original meaning. Although these days the preferred terminology is developed/developing/under developed. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] quill7513@anarchist.nexus 7 points 1 day ago (2 children) under developed is only preferred in academic circles, particularly economics. most other places refer to such places as "over-exploited" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] moldy_rice@piefed.keyboardvagabond.com 1 point 1 day ago* Or "2/3rds world" (as in the majority of countries neither aligned with Soviet Communism nor US Capitalism and therefore not as exploited or industrialized/polluting) permalink fedilink source parent [+] PostsFromWikipedia@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 day ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] dom@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 day ago* (1 child) I mean it in the colloquial sense based on how well taken care of the people are. No I am not writing a dissertation. This is a discussion on a message board where people may use hyperbole to make their opinion clear permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Tiresia@slrpnk.net 1 point 12 hours ago :Q. What do you call a third world country that takes care of its people as well as Scandinavia?A. Overdue for a CIA coup : permalink fedilink source parent [–] TachyonTele_Esq@piefed.social 10 points 1 day ago First world is not a state of a country, it's a label the US and Europe created after WWII for themselves. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ContriteErudite@lemmy.world 36 points 2 days ago (10 children) Help us out: what do you think “First World,” “Second World,” and “Third World” actually mean? The terms referred to cold war political alignment: the U.S.-led bloc, the Soviet-led bloc, and countries aligned with neither. It was not a tidy ranking from rich and civilized to poor and backward. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] manuallybreathing@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 day ago (3 children) I agree with you and you are correct but this is linguistic prescriptivism, which is one of the things the what is a woman crowd cling to but the other people using third wold country to mean allows sex abuse makes my skin crawl Examine your preconceived ideas, before they examine you permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] dom@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 day ago (2 children) I did not mean third world to mean that, but rather in the colloquial sense of how much a country takes care of its people. Understood that so many on this platform strictly care about historical definitions and prescriptive language policing though permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BillyTheKid2@lemmy.ca 1 point 22 hours ago (1 child) Being more concerned with the words used than the intended meaning is an internetism that harms us all. I'm guilty of this too.. It's tricky though, because words have meaning- and that meaning really depends on context. Not just the context in which it's spoken, but also the context is the one speaking it. And often people online who think they're arguing are really just misunderstanding each other's definitions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] dom@lemmy.ca 2 points 18 hours ago You're absolutely right. In this instance I mistakenly thought it was obvious for most that I did not mean im the strict literal definition. Oh well, no big deal permalink fedilink source parent [–] CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago (3 children) Yes those were the original definitions but colloquial usage has shifted from the original meaning. Although these days the preferred terminology is developed/developing/under developed. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] quill7513@anarchist.nexus 7 points 1 day ago (2 children) under developed is only preferred in academic circles, particularly economics. most other places refer to such places as "over-exploited" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] moldy_rice@piefed.keyboardvagabond.com 1 point 1 day ago* Or "2/3rds world" (as in the majority of countries neither aligned with Soviet Communism nor US Capitalism and therefore not as exploited or industrialized/polluting) permalink fedilink source parent [+] PostsFromWikipedia@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 day ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] dom@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 day ago* (1 child) I mean it in the colloquial sense based on how well taken care of the people are. No I am not writing a dissertation. This is a discussion on a message board where people may use hyperbole to make their opinion clear permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Tiresia@slrpnk.net 1 point 12 hours ago :Q. What do you call a third world country that takes care of its people as well as Scandinavia?A. Overdue for a CIA coup : permalink fedilink source parent
[–] manuallybreathing@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 day ago (3 children) I agree with you and you are correct but this is linguistic prescriptivism, which is one of the things the what is a woman crowd cling to but the other people using third wold country to mean allows sex abuse makes my skin crawl Examine your preconceived ideas, before they examine you permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] dom@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 day ago (2 children) I did not mean third world to mean that, but rather in the colloquial sense of how much a country takes care of its people. Understood that so many on this platform strictly care about historical definitions and prescriptive language policing though permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BillyTheKid2@lemmy.ca 1 point 22 hours ago (1 child) Being more concerned with the words used than the intended meaning is an internetism that harms us all. I'm guilty of this too.. It's tricky though, because words have meaning- and that meaning really depends on context. Not just the context in which it's spoken, but also the context is the one speaking it. And often people online who think they're arguing are really just misunderstanding each other's definitions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] dom@lemmy.ca 2 points 18 hours ago You're absolutely right. In this instance I mistakenly thought it was obvious for most that I did not mean im the strict literal definition. Oh well, no big deal permalink fedilink source parent
[–] dom@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 day ago (2 children) I did not mean third world to mean that, but rather in the colloquial sense of how much a country takes care of its people. Understood that so many on this platform strictly care about historical definitions and prescriptive language policing though permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BillyTheKid2@lemmy.ca 1 point 22 hours ago (1 child) Being more concerned with the words used than the intended meaning is an internetism that harms us all. I'm guilty of this too.. It's tricky though, because words have meaning- and that meaning really depends on context. Not just the context in which it's spoken, but also the context is the one speaking it. And often people online who think they're arguing are really just misunderstanding each other's definitions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] dom@lemmy.ca 2 points 18 hours ago You're absolutely right. In this instance I mistakenly thought it was obvious for most that I did not mean im the strict literal definition. Oh well, no big deal permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BillyTheKid2@lemmy.ca 1 point 22 hours ago (1 child) Being more concerned with the words used than the intended meaning is an internetism that harms us all. I'm guilty of this too.. It's tricky though, because words have meaning- and that meaning really depends on context. Not just the context in which it's spoken, but also the context is the one speaking it. And often people online who think they're arguing are really just misunderstanding each other's definitions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] dom@lemmy.ca 2 points 18 hours ago You're absolutely right. In this instance I mistakenly thought it was obvious for most that I did not mean im the strict literal definition. Oh well, no big deal permalink fedilink source parent
[–] dom@lemmy.ca 2 points 18 hours ago You're absolutely right. In this instance I mistakenly thought it was obvious for most that I did not mean im the strict literal definition. Oh well, no big deal permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago (3 children) Yes those were the original definitions but colloquial usage has shifted from the original meaning. Although these days the preferred terminology is developed/developing/under developed. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] quill7513@anarchist.nexus 7 points 1 day ago (2 children) under developed is only preferred in academic circles, particularly economics. most other places refer to such places as "over-exploited" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] moldy_rice@piefed.keyboardvagabond.com 1 point 1 day ago* Or "2/3rds world" (as in the majority of countries neither aligned with Soviet Communism nor US Capitalism and therefore not as exploited or industrialized/polluting) permalink fedilink source parent [+] PostsFromWikipedia@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 day ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] quill7513@anarchist.nexus 7 points 1 day ago (2 children) under developed is only preferred in academic circles, particularly economics. most other places refer to such places as "over-exploited" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] moldy_rice@piefed.keyboardvagabond.com 1 point 1 day ago* Or "2/3rds world" (as in the majority of countries neither aligned with Soviet Communism nor US Capitalism and therefore not as exploited or industrialized/polluting) permalink fedilink source parent [+] PostsFromWikipedia@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 day ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] moldy_rice@piefed.keyboardvagabond.com 1 point 1 day ago* Or "2/3rds world" (as in the majority of countries neither aligned with Soviet Communism nor US Capitalism and therefore not as exploited or industrialized/polluting) permalink fedilink source parent
[+] PostsFromWikipedia@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 day ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] dom@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 day ago* (1 child) I mean it in the colloquial sense based on how well taken care of the people are. No I am not writing a dissertation. This is a discussion on a message board where people may use hyperbole to make their opinion clear permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Tiresia@slrpnk.net 1 point 12 hours ago :Q. What do you call a third world country that takes care of its people as well as Scandinavia?A. Overdue for a CIA coup : permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Tiresia@slrpnk.net 1 point 12 hours ago :Q. What do you call a third world country that takes care of its people as well as Scandinavia?A. Overdue for a CIA coup : permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TachyonTele_Esq@piefed.social 10 points 1 day ago First world is not a state of a country, it's a label the US and Europe created after WWII for themselves. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] KingPorkChop@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 day ago (1 child) Jesus America is a third world country backwards shithole filled with evil fucktards. FTFY permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Tiresia@slrpnk.net 1 point 12 hours ago :CW: nitpicking Jesus taking the lord's name in vain or cultural appropriation America The USA, not the rest of America backwards reproduces the notion of the linear progression of civilization, a liberal colonialist fabrication shithole a shithole implies a shitter outside of it, but the US is not being shat upon from the outside filled with implies there are no others, which isn't true evil binary thinking and possible essentialism -tards slur against the mentally disabled is a fuck. Correct, v-coding is rape. Wow, I knew the USA structurally empowers people to engage in great cruelty, but I hadn't imagined this in particular. It's probably recency bias but this feels like a new low. : permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Tiresia@slrpnk.net 1 point 12 hours ago :CW: nitpicking Jesus taking the lord's name in vain or cultural appropriation America The USA, not the rest of America backwards reproduces the notion of the linear progression of civilization, a liberal colonialist fabrication shithole a shithole implies a shitter outside of it, but the US is not being shat upon from the outside filled with implies there are no others, which isn't true evil binary thinking and possible essentialism -tards slur against the mentally disabled is a fuck. Correct, v-coding is rape. Wow, I knew the USA structurally empowers people to engage in great cruelty, but I hadn't imagined this in particular. It's probably recency bias but this feels like a new low. : permalink fedilink source parent
[–] alapakala@quokk.au 13 points 2 days ago 🇺🇲🧑🚀🔫🧑🚀has always been. permalink fedilink source parent