If you care about third-world countries, at least be polite enough to call them developing countries.
Stereotypes about qualities frequent in Countries of such /political/ quality (such as said alleged "need for development", following the poster) are not implied.
'Third' is proper for "non-aligned"; 'developing' when noting such state makes sense (special sense, since growth seems to be a shared goal); some other term for other cases - such as "rich in raw materials", etc.
Process of elimination.
There are two main connotations. The political one wasn't being used, therefore it must be the other one.
"worst" out of two is not exactly a stretch...
All this outrage about my remark is triggering my sense of irony. Too bad I'm social drinker only.
PS: congrats to the gp who edited his comment.
You declaredly interpreted it as «[im]polite» - different from "poorly chosen", if the readers do not have enough grounds to assume your irony to be triggered before the «outrage».
In analytical terms, "Contries seeking independence may easily be reliant on key economic sources" makes sense.
This is the second post in which you are presenting no content.
...And this whole branch started by you stating that an expression would be «[im]polite», and another acceptable, without the /content/, again, founding the statement. We are the ones trying to make some sense of your riddles (or stubs).
And this post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35083720 is not even remotely a riddle. You said the origin of the term. They pointed out that the term has changed, and the person using the term wasn't using that definition anyway.
Even with it being the proper term for "non-aligned [in the cold war]", the person using the term wasn't saying non-aligned [in the cold war].
No need because that is the normal process, involving meaning and use - you could present the whole dictionary.
But it is none of our business if suddenly one individual or a multitude start using 'mangrove' for something they decide, and it gives no toss of credential to those who after that decide that 'mangrove' does not mean "mangrove".
What wasn't understood?
If the term third-world was being used to talk about cold war political alignment, they wouldn't have objected. But that's not how it was being used. The objection was completely valid.