| ▲ | trelane 7 hours ago |
| First World was US/NATO aligned. Second World was USSR/Warsaw Pact aligned. Third world was unaffiliated with either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World |
|
| ▲ | yieldcrv 6 hours ago | parent [-] |
| I think this is relevant because the colloquialism of it meaning "developed" versus "undeveloped" doesn't work when you try to build on top of it it's impossible to build on what Third World means or add lore like Fourth World when the definition is on a shaky and now non-existent foundation, while much of the unaffiliated world is highly developed now. |
| |
| ▲ | trelane 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes. Also, fitting the USSR into the extended framework, by not recognizing that it already was in the framework to begin with. IIRC Wikipedia says the term was coined ca. 1950s, so it could be argued that the USSR's decline was already factored into the term. | | |
| ▲ | QuercusMax 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > IIRC Wikipedia says the term was coined ca. 1950s, so it could be argued that the USSR's decline was already factored into the term. What? The Soviets got the bomb in 1949 and launched Sputnik in 1957. That makes no sense. | | |
| ▲ | trelane 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | That success was not evenly distributed. | | |
| ▲ | QuercusMax 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Regardless, the Soviet Union was very far from collapsing in the 1950s. Again, what are you talking about? |
|
|
|
|
