Quote (ferdia @ 7 May 2022 16:23)
There are various definitions of the expression "The third world". Here is what I found:
(and yes the term "developing" is also a bit vague)
1. Key Takeaways. A Third World country is an outdated and offensive term for a developing nation characterized by a population with low and middle incomes, and other socio-economic indicators.
2. The developing countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
3. The general definition of the Third World can be traced back to the history that nations positioned as neutral and independent during the Cold War were considered as Third World Countries, and normally these countries are defined by high poverty rates, lack of resources, and unstable financial standing.
4. The First World consisted of the U.S., Western Europe and their allies. The Second World was the so-called Communist Bloc: the Soviet Union, China, Cuba and friends. The remaining nations, which aligned with neither group, were assigned to the Third World. The Third World has always had blurred lines.
wiki terms it as follows:
The term "Third World" arose during the Cold War to define countries that remained non-aligned with either NATO or the Warsaw Pact. The United States, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Western European nations and their allies represented the "First World", while the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam and their allies represented the "Second World". This terminology provided a way of broadly categorizing the nations of the Earth into three groups based on political and economic divisions. Since the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the term Third World has decreased in use. It is being replaced with terms such as developing countries, least developed countries or the Global South. The concept itself has become outdated as it no longer represents the current political or economic state of the world and historically poor countries have transited different income stages.
I liked two questions:
question 1: 1:07:37 : (summarised) Why did he restrict the freedom of the press (and has this stopped singapore from becoming a 1st world civic society...)
(recommend listening to the full question as at time quoted)
The answer: ...circumstances change and create new situations and the individual must react to it...certain things are out of bounds. issues of race, language and religion to be raised in public is very dangerous. I do not believe we had stifled the opposition but there are certain areas that are too sensitive for open discussion. The example used was: in 1960's if he raised chinese as the national language it would have led to a riot. he therefore quietly phoned up the chinese chamber of commerse and told them if they wanted peace and quite they would not push this. similary re: Salman Rushdie's book he simply banned it as it arouses too much passion and (conflicting) emotion. Therefore he is careful.
question 2: 1:15:10 :(summarised) China & Taiwan issues
The answer: At some time a decision has to be reached on the formula that will restart talks and reduce tension.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The main takeaways for me :
Some topic's in life are too sensitive for public debate where the society is split on the position and therefore it is safer not to make an issue out of them, or, to park them and allow time to move society to be more aligned.
and
Free market, open debate and the ability to sit down and talk to people is what is needed in this world. Media intervention to package people or situations, to spin their own narrative, are dangerous and should, when appropriate, be sanctioned.
you could have posted this video in the Ukraine or Soloman Islands thread, its relevant to both of those.
if you dump this post in either thread i will dump my response, else i will just link this thread next time im posting there.
You went through the whole video ???
i m impressed mate, i thought it was too lengthy ..