Hacker News Reader

Comment by humaniania | Hacker News Reader

Developing countries, not third world, that term is offensive. Those clothes allow people to open their own small business fashion boutiques which creates jobs. They lower prices and give consumers more choice. They do take away business from giant clothing brand companies that exploit labor in developing countries. What local industries does it hurt?

View on HN

> that term is offensive.

Sorry, but 'third world' is really only offensive to people from first world countries who find the term 'third world' offensive. Oh, and it might also be offensive to people in developing countries who can afford developed countries' lifestyles.

I may not agree with the usage either, but that's what I see all around the third world countries that I've been to, and the one where I have lived since I was born. No one really cares, and no one is offended (except see previous paragraph).

“Third world” is a dumb term to use because it’s based on the Cold War where the USSR was the “second world” and that shit hasn’t existed for over 30 years. Developing / underdeveloped are better, far less amorphous terms. Agree it’s not really offensive, but it is a poor choice of words for reasons completely unrelated to political correctness.

At least its better than "global south". It was rediculous when people would start talking about "global north" countries like Australia.

Yep, all these workarounds get used because some people force their sensibilities on everybody else. Obviously, the real divide is between "rich" and "poor" countries, but it's too "cruel" or "crass" to call things what they are. It seems that the poor don't mind that much, but the term is especially offensive for the rich, as it induces guilt in some of them and a fear of retribution in others. Anyway, whatever else is used in place of rich/poor, is bound to comically fall flat on its face, i.e.:

- "third world" should include Switzerland and Austria, as they were neutral during the cold war

- "developing countries" should not include places in major wars or civil wars (such as for example not Yemen), as they're clearly not developing, but rather deteriorating.

- as you point out, "global south" should include the wealthy Australia.

It also expands into other examples of hypocrisy, such as the term "African-American", which is just an euphemism for black Americans (which itself suggest that being black is bad somehow), but due to its clumsiness also includes lots of non-black people, such as Tunesian-Americans (no black people there).

Everybody knows that history , terms change with time, as someone who has lived all his life in the 3rd world, I have never met even 1 person who is offended by the term (I have met online a lot of first-worlders offended though). We use the term as sarcastic self-mockery and as encompassing umbrella to identify ourselves with nations all over the world under the same predicaments. Proud tercermundista here.

> We use the term as sarcastic self-mockery and as encompassing umbrella to identify ourselves with nations all over the world under the same predicaments.

Yes, that's it. You said it better than I did.

As a first worlder, it never occurred to me that there was a second world so TIL

I had no idea it was related to the USSR at all and had just assumed third world strictly meant a poor nation

Indeed it is very dumb because it does not categorise countries by development, in actuality is it only about their political alignment - 'neutral' countries were third world.

https://www.humanosphere.org/social-business/2014/09/toms-sh...

There is one article talking about the effect on local industry. The gist of it is that you help people out by giving them free stuff, but you kill the local food/clothing/shoe industry and therefore trap the very communities you intend to help into a cycle where they can never start businesses and raise their standard of living because nobody will buy their stuff because they get it for free through aid.

Also, the term "third world" is not offensive and most people are tired of playing this game where some group declares some term offensive and we are all expected to stop using it. You don't get to dictate the language people use to talk and think about the world around them.

Do people really wear secondhand clothes and shoes if they care about appearance and can afford more fashionable, better fitting locally made stuff? This could be equally applicable to first-world countries, where most people don't wear cheap secondhand clothes although they're readily available

Nobody said anything about being fashionable.

I personally wear almost exclusively second hand clothes. The only things I buy new are shoes and underwear.

Im literally born and living in a third world country and its not offensive lol, but yea you're right people here LOVE those cheap quality clothes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com