UKH

This hasn't been a term used in any sort of serious discussion about global inequality, development etc for decades, yet I still see it used here quite a lot, often by people who should know better. We never use 2nd World of 4th World, which are part of the same outdated and derogatory system of economic classification.

Can we use terms such as developing or low income economies instead please.

I will no doubt get dislikes for being PC or whatever, but I really don't care.

But keep the derogatory terms for individuals, right ?

You may have to elaborate.

Stop using a term we've used for years and which most people of a certain age understand, or switch to PC jargon which means nothing?

Just on a point of order, unfortunately quite a few of these economies aren't developing at all.

Explain what it means then. The other words are not jargon, PC or otherwise, they are perfectly good descriptors.

A potential point of debate, I'm not sure how accurate it is in all but a couple of extreme examples, but surely a few relevant descriptors are better than a lazy outdated term stripped of much of its original meaning.

https://upgrader.gapminder.org/

Soon got the hang of that once I'd realised my glass was actually half full.

I prefer to use developing countries when talking development and 3rd world when talking about damaging western economic exploitation. We have the luxury of choice the poor in those countries lack when fighting abuse from those who should know better.

I would be surprised if most people “of a certain age” can’t work out what “low income” means. Same goes for “economies” if it was that bit you felt was problematic. All commonly used and understood words and phrases that are hardly “PC jargon which means nothing”. I’m not clear why anyone’s age would make it difficult for them to understand them. 

'Descriptor' is a horrible word, if you don't mind me saying so.

Whatever you use, please, don't use "global south". 

I think income levels are probably the most objective way of describing the economic status of a country: https://www.gapminder.org/fw/income-levels/

However income alone doesn't describe a country and I must admit I rather like Trump's integral descriptor of "shithole countries" as a way of collecting together the politics, culture, inequality and corruption into one category.

I think the term "developing countries" overtook it in the 90s, really - that was the term I heard used in school Geography around then.  But even that is somewhat derogatory.  I'm not sure what the current one is.

It's not a great term to use, another similar one I very strongly dislike is "third sector" which implies that the voluntary and charitable sector is somehow less worthy than the commercial and statutory sectors, whereas in reality all of them are important in their own way.

I think you might find that the phrase 3rd World was derived from the French 3rd Estate used during the early French Revolution referring to the commoners who were supporting the other two Estates above them the clergy and the nobility. The analogy of the 3rd world supporting the more successful economies is therefore appropriate. Perhaps the guilt trip of exploiting 3rd World countries has led to the mealy mouthed terms -developing economies or low income economies. As someone has pointed out some economies in the 3rd World are going nowhere in fact some are shrinking, hardly developing!

It very much doesn’t come from “third estate”.

I agree with this horrible phrase.

What shall we call the UK?  Regressive economy perhaps.  Undeveloping economy?  Self-destructing economy?  Or simply F*cked.

Could you please enlighten me, where does the term come from ?

(An honest question, I simply do not know it's origination).

The Cold War. First World Countries were those aligned to NATO, Second World were those aligned to the USSR or broadly communist, Third World being non-aligned countries, including many former colonies.

It morphed in to meaning poor countries, but this doesn’t really work. Ethiopia in the 80s was probably technically a second world country, whilst rich Sweden was non-aligned, so technically third world.

Wikipedia suggests The New Nick B is wrong, it does ultimately come from the French third estate 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World

I would bet (though it can’t be proved) that the majority of your dislikes are because you said “I will no doubt get dislikes”

The term is generally credited to Alfred Sauvy from his 1952 article "Three Worlds, One Planet" although it has been claimed that Claude Boulder used it in 1949. Sauvey's definition is broadly the same as the one that I have given above. Whilst Sauvy references the Third Estate, it really isn't a useful comparison in this debate.

Possibly. I really don't mind. It was as much about me identifying that this might not be a popular view.

Oh dear you've exposed my bullshit but the analogy still stands and the words developing economies and low income economies are mealy mouthed. It seems the phrase 'Majority World' has gained some traction, referring to the countries where most of the population earn less than $10 a day-80% of the worlds population.

The phrase 3rd World has evolved to mean something slightly different from its original cold war meaning which is nothing new with language and is regarded by some as derogatory but so is 'developing' as it infers some sort of inferiority

There are a lot of words we have used for a long time that we no longer use. Some because the PC brigade have decided we shouldn't and some because they are downright offensive. 

Fully agree with you on this one, some places seem to be regressing. 

this was very informative, thank you for sharing!

I gave him a like for that very sentence.

There is that as well. I could pretend it was an experiment in psychology, but it wasn’t.

Why not use the terms Least Developed Countries, as the UN does, or, more simply, Poor Countries, as Esther Duflo does.

Derogatory?  not sure about that, besides, they unlikely to be on UKC so, if a tree falls in the forest ....... and all that.

We all know what it means, like sink estate, we could call it something different, but everyone immediately knows what you're talking about.

Impoverished and/or dysfunctional seems more apt (and less un PC) I dare say.

I'm a handwringing liberal lefty and have never seen anything wrong with 3rd world, but maybe that's me needing to find out why it can be offensive.

I guess impoverished or dysfunctional could mean no new term needs learning...

Except there’s a huge range of countries which might class as “Third World”, ie. not the west, not the Soviet bloc (as was), so it doesn’t really tell you much about them at all. The gulf between a very poor basket case country and a less developed but kind of okay place is vast. That’s without thinking about the variance in income, wealth, life expectancy within countries. 
 

So no, everyone does not immediately know what you’re talking about. 

Seems like a 1st world problem.

Except they don't. Most people I've found using the term 3rd world are also misapplying it* and have a poor/outdated idea of global development. 

We should all make the effort to use the right words for things and not be lazy about keeping our world view up to date.

*I'm not sure it's possible to correctly apply a catch all term that's redolent of a world view which is 30 years out of date but you know what I mean.

Third world country = developing country. There's nothing derogatory about the usage of either of them, they're both perfectly interchangeable and everyone understands both.

If you would rather use one than the other then be my guest, just lay off with the preaching? 

Which one do you think people in the countries being referred to prefer and which one do you think those working in global development use?

I would imagine that the people of the countries bring referred to world be bemused by the whole debate. I don't currently work in global development, I'm extremely unlikely to do so in the future, so I don't really care.

My objection is to the idea of, once again, being painted as somehow less than worthy simply because I don't use the exact language proscribed by someone else.

If you think I'm being derogatory to some people less lucky than myself by referring to their countries as 3rd world, you're wrong; but I'm sure I won't be able change your mind. 

I don't know if you're being derogatory, I never mentioned that, but if you want to continue referring to countries as third world you are certainly out of date.

This happens with lots of words, the usage changes as our understanding and to a degree fashion changes. What was once correct technical language becomes outmoded and it takes a while for Joe Public to catch up. 

I don't want to sound confrontational but, if you don't think I'm being derogatory, then what is the problem?

Doesn't Joe Public get a say in changes to his own language? If the answer is "no" then where can Joe go to become qualified to decide? 

Just because you don't work in a particular field doesn't mean you shouldn't try to use the right vocabulary when discussing it. I give you 'free climbing' as an example of public misuse use of a technical term that annoys many on here.  

The term is at least 30 years out of date. Do try to keep up! 

You're free to carry on using anachronisms but don't be surprised if people comment on it as now.

School. Or www.gapminder.org

But who decides which is the right vocabulary?

We're blessed with this great language which can be used to discern infinitesimal nuance and yet some people think that they have the right to arbitrarily judge that some words are unacceptable. 

If you can give me a good reason to substitute a given word, I probably will. 

I've no idea how you managed to take the moral high ground without making any moral point. 

But you did. 

Well done. 

I think that a term not having been used by organisations and individuals working in the field for decades is a good enough reason.

Another good reason is when a term has become an inaccurate descriptor as third world has.

An objection I have is that the term is intrinsically saddled with effort in order to understand it. What are the first and second worlds? Is there a fourth one?

In the same way, while I kind of know what is meant by the Fifth Column, I feel that I kind of don't either, since I cannot rattle off the identities of Columns One to Four.

I would say: countries where the per capita income is less than $X.

If we're going to be constrained by the nomenclature used within organisations then, believe me, we are all royally stuffed! 

It also suggests neat divisions and obvious gaps between groups of countries which simply don't exist.

And then you need to decide what X is.

It's also not just about the money. Costa Rica has about a quarter of the GDP p/c of the USA and a slightly higher life expectancy.

You've just given me the impetus to find out the meaning of the term "Fifth Column", thank you!

Apparently it originated in the Spanish Civil War and referred to a statement by General Franco reporting that there were four nationalist columns advancing on Madrid. He reported that a fifth column was ready to rise up on their arrival.

Problem is when you Google 3rd Worid you descend into the murky world of multinational organisations, academics and think tanks all on there fat salaries spending loads of time and money discussing what we should call the 3rd World. Meanwhile the people of the 3rd World couldn't care a shit what you call them they just want a decent standard of living, they are too busy just surviving to worry about labels.

I'm not sure your characterisation of such people as being too busy surviving to worry about labels is correct. My limited experience of people in the developing world is that many are very politically aware and have a shrewd understanding of and interest in how other nations view them.

Lovely bit of sidestepping there to avoid both my points.  

For the most part I'm quite happy to take the UN's lead on what language to use around global development.

OK then, MOST people

I'm pretty sure that the labels aren;t their top priority. Roof over their heads and food on the table is top priority for most, politics comes a long distant second even for us in the 1st world.

That was just a taster. 

So now, your starter for ten: what is the the Fourth Estate, and for bonus marks, who, what or when were the first three?

I'm afraid in my experience - over a decade working in international development, lots of field visits to a variety of developing countries, and a whole load of in-laws in a developing (but not terribly poor) country - Dave is quite correct. Politics matters a LOT to people in poorer countries. When politics goes bad in these places, it can go very bad - civil wars, coups, suddenly finding your country owing billions to China for the president's vanity project. Funnily enough lots of people care about this stuff. Some of my rellies have tales that make your hair stand up on end, and it's nearly all the result of bad politics. Being able to care less about politics is a rich world luxury.

Most developing countries also really care what the outside world thinks of them. Remember, lots of people worldwide speak English, watch our TV, read our newspapers. And you can never underestimate national and cultural pride, especially in colonised countries. The Nigerian singer Fela Kuti even has a song in which he sings about being a called "non-aligned nations"...

Sorry, I didn't mean to sidestep but my point stands:-

Everyone understands what third world means, and yet no one (that I'm likely to have contact with at least) is upset by it. I think that means that it's ok to carry on using it... even at the risk of it jarring with those within the international development fraternity. 

So... is Malaysia a Third World country? Is Thailand? What do those countries have in common with Chad or the DRC? If "Third World" covers places whose capitals are as disparate as Kuala Lumpa and Kinshasa, then as a term it ceases to have much meaning.

How else are we to describe the USA then, if we can no longer call it the richest third world country?

T.

I don't know.

I'll put my hands up and admit that I rarely use the term "Third World Country", it's just that I object to people telling me that I'm not allowed to use it. 

The OP described the term as both outdated and derogatory. It’s absolutely clearly the first - if you can’t say whether a country deserves this label or not, then it’s outlived its usefulness. If you don’t refer to Russia and Eastern Europe as the Soviet Bloc then it makes little sense to continue to refer to other nations using the same frame of reference. The political set up that gave it some kind of sense no longer exists. Malaysia is very nearly a developed country, describing it as somewhere on a par with Burundi is just daft. 

Is it derogatory? Well, it lumps lots of non-western countries together and pretends they’re all the same, and that casual ignorance of those places by us is hardly respectful is it? That’s just an echo of the kind of blind arrogance of our ancestors when they drew stupid and destructive borders as the colonial age came to an end. (Mistakes that are still alive and well and wrecking lives long after we have ceased to even care.) How would you feel if your country had made incredible strides forward - doing in 50 years what took us 400 - but was still described with a phrase whose connotations are with poverty, hunger and ignorance?

I’m not telling you that you can’t use the word. I’m suggesting that there are good reasons not to!

You're not telling me not to use the term but you're heaping the moral judgements onto me if I do! 

"Casual ignorance." 

"Stupid and destructive." 

"Blind arrogance." 

"Wrecking lives."

Is all this aimed at me because I chose not to use the exact terms that you deem appropriate? 

Malaysia and Burundi are very different places. Thanks, I get that. I wouldn't describe Malaysia as a third world country - but Burundi I probably would. 

For goodness' sake, have a think before you castigate me in those terms. How about reserving your ire for those that truly deserve it? I really don't think that I do.

Edit: spelling

I wasn't familiar with the term, but I've googled it and it turns out that it refers to the press and their ability to frame the terms of public debate.

The first three are the clergy, the nobility, and the commoners.

What do I win? If I there's a choice of prizes, I choose freedom of speech. 

Strong snowflake energy on this comment!

casual ignorance of those places by us (as in western people)

blind arrogance of our ancestors (not strictly my ancestors, who were Irish peasants, and probably not yours either, but you know what I mean)

they drew stupid and destructive borders (well they did, didn't they? I'm not for a minute suggesting that you, random climbing forum bloke, divided India and Pakistan.)

Note that today's careless phrase is "an echo" of those offending words. So quite clearly signposted as not a description of the present use.

Mistakes that are still alive and well and wrecking lives (well, they are, aren't they?)

Epic misreading.

As I said, continue to use the term if you like, it's just a bit silly. If you believe it's not a derogatory phrase, then please construct an argument saying why, rather than getting all pouty and demanding something no one is taking from you.

Close the door and try not to trip over the irony on your way out, mate. 

Happy New Year. 

If you believe it’s not a derogatory term then how about making an argument for it? I’m not castigating you or making a moral judgment, simply suggesting why it’s not a great phrase to use. 
 

If you’re only argument is “I want to use it because I want to use it and always have done,” then you really have rather ducked the challenge. 
 

Edit: and what’s with “mate”. It’s so passive aggressive! Either use “pal” or just don’t bother. 

You've got free speech. It looks like you're asking for freedom to speak without anyone else having the freedom to reply when they think you're talking crap.

If you think "mate" is passive aggressive, you'd probably come across as a bit sensitive round here,  cock.

It’s not yet 9am and you’ve gone online and called someone a cock... 

This was a debate and that was your contribution. Reading it now in the morning, do you think it was a valuable one? 

Hang on a sec. Aren't you the one that called me a snowflake? 😂

As I said, a bit sensitive.

I notice you still have failed to respond to any of my points with a reasoned argument. 
 

Fwiw, I think the “outdated” argument is far stronger than the “derogatory” argument, but the later still has merit. Your view seems to be little more than “I don’t like to be told what to say and I want my free speech”, which is fine - I’m not telling you what to say nor impinging on your free speech. Can you defend your view with any more skill?

I'd say that as you are trying to remove a common term from common usage, then the onus falls on you to provide your reasons. How on earth can it fall to me to defend every term in the language from those who happen not to like them?

If your best argument is that the term is out of date, then I'm afraid that I'm going to feel free to use it - not that I used it much in the first place, I was more concerned with the principle.

Let's take your list of derogatory statements that you made above (casual ignorance, stupid and destructive, blind arrogance, wrecking lives etc). I accept that they weren't aimed at me personally, but the fact that you felt free to deploy them in this context reinforces the feeling that many people have; that of being censored by the results of a debate to which they haven't contributed.

Who wants to be associated, even indirectly with any of those labels? I know that I don't. Many decent people are extremely wary of causing offence and, if someone takes your opinion into account the next time they are reaching for a description of a poorer, struggling country they'll be wary of using it for fear of "wrecking lives". It's fallacious in this and many other cases of modern censorship.

There are baddies out there that need to be challenged on their language and their beliefs. It's really not hard to find them if you take the effort to look. Maybe you are making that effort, but I think you're looking in the wrong place.

There is a world of difference between calling someone cock than calling someone a cock but hey ho thats the joy of nuances in the English language. One could almost be a term of endearment the other could earn you a fat lip.

If it makes you think a second longer before crying "free speech", next time someone disagrees with you then yes.

When a journalist is silenced for revealing the truth about events which the authorities do not want exposed, there is an abuse of free speech. When political discourse is occurring without intervention but someone feels judged or criticised for what they've said, then their free speech is completely unaffected.

So there is an opportunity there for you to learn how the current fashion of crying "free speech" in the course of a perfectly free discussion is a right load of old shit. It's up to you what to do with that contribution, and you may well correct that it was a waste of time. But that won't be my fault. 

Ahh, but because it's out of date, it's not that much use as a word to describe the state of the world. It's like referring to Prussia - something that doesn't exist any more. Or more accurately, like referring to Rhodeisa - you're making a statement about your view of the world, rather than referring to a place.

As for "remove a word from common usage", I prefer "help people to see the world more accurately", but I'm not trying to remove it at all, as I've made quite clear all along.

Anyhow, I have provided some reasons why one might not like the phrase (as I have said, feel free to carry on using it), the usual way debate works is that you provide a counter argument to my argument.

If you think my argument was "using the phrase 'third world' is wrecking lives" then you've deeply misunderstood what I wrote. Loop back around and take another look, secure in the knowledge that this isn't what I'm saying in the slightest.

As for censorship, I've made it quite clear I think you're free to carry on using the phrase. The whole censorship thing is some kind of fantasy you've got going on from having read too much Toby Young or something. 

Yes, it is a term of familiarity/ friendship. . Same as "duck" a few miles down the road.

Since you mention nuance, I was puzzled by the original complaint that "mate" was  passive aggressive whereas "pal" wasn't.  I can't detect much difference between them: if anything, I'd prefer mate to pal.

But reverting to "cock", we were discussing terms like this in the pub a few years ago when my favourite barmaid chipped in with 

"I don't like "cock" ".

You can imagine the rest.

Nobody is censoring anyone here, as far as I can tell. You've been given an explanation of how some people see the connotations of a particular term, and therefore presented with the option to self-censor or not, as you see fit.

If you don't want to be indirectly associated with those labels, I've got a simple solution for you... if someone points out some words, or concepts, that are directly associated with those labels, just stop using them. 

Personally, I've always used "third world" to mean poor countries, without much thought as to where the term comes from or what the connotations for the people who live in such countries might be.

Having had these things pointed out to me up thread, I'll probably make a bit of an effort to phase out the term from my speech. It's no biggie, I won't flagellate myself when it comes out of my mouth on occasion and I don't feel offended in the slightest by someone pointing out that I'm a bit out of date.

Perhaps ask yourself why you feel so strongly about this? It's really nothing to get upset about in the grand scheme of things.

Why would there being "baddies out there" effect whether or not you want to make the effort to keep up to date with current terminology?

In common with every fantasist, I honestly don't think that I'm a fantasist! Other than that, I think that we'll have to agree to disagree.

 A (genuinely) Happy New Year to you, Sean. 

I'm not upset, I was actually quite enjoying the debate but no-one's budging so it's probably best to draw a line under it. 
Happy New Year to you too, Ciro.

I'm not sure I "cried" free speech. I did mention it in a slightly tongue in cheek aside to MBH.

I do see your point and I'm a little wary of the fashion myself.

The rest of your post is properly condescending, if you don't mind me saying (or even if you do tbh). Who on earth are you to offer me "opportunities to learn"? Shocking attitude.

The OP is hardly coming up with a better alternative or grouping though.

I've worked in international development for the better part of a decade too and the shifting fashions, egos, and levels of bullshittery in the field are quite something to behold - the very fact my degree in it is an MSc and not an MA speaks to that level of delusion. It's not science by a long shot. So I'm reluctant to tell anyone they need to listen to the holier than thou practitioners and take a lead from what the sector thinks is righteous language.

As someone said further up the page, the beneficiaries of development practice tend to be utterly bemused by this naval gazing (though sometimes fully adopting the rituals of this language) and themselves only too happy to refer to us by some ill-fitting but well understood term. It's one of the better aspects of working in the area; the marked contrast in pretense and snobbery between patron and client and hilariously convoluted linguistic attempts of the later to pretend these relationships dont exist.

Illuminating. 

You don't have to post, you know. Maybe next time don't bother? 

I wouldn't disagree with much of this post (even tho I'm not entirely convinced by your sudden appearance and, ahem, sparse profile, such are the times in which we live). But I'm fairly sure I've not used "say this, because the experts do" as an argument.

As for do people care about these kinds of classifications... I was in a country when it jumped up a band in some World Bank rating or other, you know, from "lower middle income" to "upper middle income" status. It was front page news.

Erm, you aren't even debating! You saw an argument, decided you didn't like it and cried censorship and "they're taking my free speech away". This when, as many other posters have pointed out, there was no such attempt to stop you saying anything.

Anyhow Happy New Year to you too.

Now that I've bowed out, would you mind not misquoting me? Ta. 

Yes..sort of. What they *said* is unaffected but what they say in future may well be. One must be careful of bullying and intimidation, of shutting people up because they fear retribution for expressing honestly held opinions in their own way.

This article is a little hyperbolic as Cohen often is but does lay things out quite clearly.

https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/january-february-2021/round-up-the-ordinary-...

I merely paraphrase your argument - which when put in those terms looks kind of flimsy, right?

You wrote: "they're taking my free speech away" in quotation marks and ascribed it to me.

I never said that, play fair. 

Context is everything I would imagine if she had said 'I like cock' imagining the rest doesn't bear thinking about. Reminds me of a young customer (pretty with violet eyes) who said to me in conversation 'I had my first jump yesterday'. When I looked at her with raised eyebrows she said 'Oh not that I meant a parachute jump.' There can be lots of misunderstanding with the nuances of language.

I'm doing you a favour as it sounds less idiotic than: "If I there's a choice of prizes, I choose freedom of speech."

Yes, that's what I wrote in the lighter-hearted reply to MBH...which I now regret, for what it's worth.

Please let it go now. 

If I ask you to explain the relevance of your post and the article in this context, am I guilty of "bullying and intimidation" and perhaps "shouting you down"? Because I think it's completely irrelevant.

I am sick to the back teeth of people wanting to express their opinions publicly while being immune from challenge because anyone disagreeing with them is somehow threatening their "free speech".

What would the world look like if we remove this so-called threat to free speech from "bullying and intimidation"? Would everything we say in a political discussion have to be prefaced with "I respect your views as equally valid as my own, and encourage you to express them without any inhibition, but here is my perspective, which I am not suggesting is in any way more accurate, better informed, more logical, or more useful, because all our views have precisely equal value". 

Perhaps there's something wrong with me, but that's just not really my cup of tea.

Actually in less than a second, someone quipped "That's not what it says in the gents toilets".

My point is that there is a trend to over reaction in the face of perceived micro aggression and this is a good if trivial example (as no one is being threatened with dismissal or being denied a platform for expressing their views).

You don't regard the OP as being overly censorious and perhaps rather supercilious? I'll paste it here again for easy reference.

This hasn't been a term used in any sort of serious discussion about global inequality, development etc for decades, yet I still see it used here quite a lot, often by people who should know better. We never use 2nd World of 4th World, which are part of the same outdated and derogatory system of economic classification.

..hasn't been a term used in serious discussion.. = If you use it you don't know what you're talking about.

..by people who should know better = it's not an innocent mistake so obviously you're some kind of a bigot.

..outdated and derogatory = everybody knows better now so you're just being offensive.

At least three insults in two sentences.

The OP could have been worded so much better. Instead of accusing people who use the term of some poorly defined prejudice the post could have assumed that people used the phrase without realising that some other people found it a bit offensive and then gone on to explain why. It's very typical of how this kind of discourse plays out today, "you said something I find a little off therefore you are a vile and evil person and I don't have to justify why I think that in anything other than the vaguest of terms". 

No doubt and such movements have a real impact on economies. 

But on the other hand, the urge to problematise insignificant naming conventions (as though this amounts to real action) winds me up. It smacks of high-minded ideals in lieu of more obvious, but personally-inconvenient, alternatives.  A huge amount of time (and donor funding) is wasted in academia and amongst practitioners on exactly that, as if it amounts to real action. 

A better placement of effort, if the OP cares about the third world, would be to check out the effective-altruism movements and commit 10% of his/her annual income to one of those causes. For most people, the chasm between theorising and meaningful action remains unbridged though once it requires a genuine and significant opening of the wallet. Far easier to stay comfortable in our 2% zone.

Which makes the focus on critiquing language and terminology, especially that used by others, appear at best a distraction and at worst virtue signalling (there, I said it); a marker of greater investment or action in the plight of the third world while avoiding actually doing anything significant at all.

If I wanted to insult people I would have been a lot more upfront about it. What you describe as insults are simply statements of fact. Your interpretation of those statements is in reality far more insulting.

I did that and got very little engagement beyond a bit of manufactured outrage and a misreading. It felt like being hit over the head with a soggy copy of the Spectator rather than any attempt at a conversation. So perhaps turn your ire away from the OP and towards those who engaged in an incredibly limited and silly way?

That's changed. I thought your point was that "one must be careful of bullying and intimidation, of shutting people up because they fear retribution for expressing honestly held opinions in their own way."

Sure, you think someone's over-reacting. Fine, tell them you think they're over-reacting. Where's the bullying and intimidation? Where's the fear of retribution?

Clearly somebody is over-reacting, aren't they?

It's not an issue that stirs great passions in me. It feels to me like you're calling for some new standards of insipid, insincere timidity and over-politeness...which apart from anything is very confusing, because I thought that those who were worried about "threats to free speech" wanted to be able to say what they liked, in any context, no matter how objectionable other people found it.

I'm afraid I just don't know what you want. If you didn't like the OP, use your freedom of speech to respond to it, why whine that they shouldn't have posted it?

They're your interpretations which sound like exaggerations to me.

That sounds like an exaggeration to me. I've got no idea how any of this relates to "bullying and intimidation", "freedom of speech" and Nick Cohen's tired old repetitive whining about Robin Diangelo, and of course, f*cking Foucault.

I think there's an element of this, and it's worse in some places than others, but I feel you over-exagerate this. Still, YMMV. The development stuff I've done in an academic environment hasn't been at somewhere like SOAS or the University of Sussex, and wasn't in a development studies department, so I can't comment on those places.

If your marker of genuine, significant caring or action is giving 10% of income away then you're simply being far too idealistic. This isn't realistic or achievable for the vast majority of people and it's therefore not a real solution. I'd rather people were talking about these ideas than not, even if it's not followed by much actual money. Because less engagement is hardly going to lead to increased funding, is it?

What does over -exaggerate mean.?

Can you under-exaggerate something?

Dubya said he misunderestimated stuff, so anything's possible.

No wonder then that one of his henchmen kept on about "unknown unknowns".

I am very interested in inequality and TBH so long as we are speaking of it, we actually end up doing something and making people with good heart, feel uncomfortable because they may happen to use the wrong phrase for that moment in time, just shuts things down and stops things happening.

Have you ever considered joining the RSA, I was a fellow, but sadly they are very weak in the North West, but they are very motivated in tackling inequality.

I know a few FRSA people quite well and work with a few more. It’s never been a priority for me, I’ve got a few professional body affiliations that feel a better fit for me and I can only justify so many.

In terms of the term 3rd World, as much as anything I’m just surprised that intelligent people are still using it. I’m pretty sure it was outmoded when I was at school thirty years ago, it certainly was by the time I got to University. My main interest is domestic development, rather than international.

I think you should go check the definition, I'm not sure it means what you think it means. The fact is that it's one of those terms which has been so abused as to have no clear or widely accepted definition.

It certainly doesn't accurately reflect the state of global development today which is why organisations like the UN don't use it. But as you are so dismissive of organisations like the UN then I don't expect you'll change your mind for that reason.

This will sound patronising but I think you and some others on this thread could spend a very fruitful hour or two on the Gapminder website updating your world view. 'Let the dataset change your mindset' as the late, great Hans Rosling said.

I am surprised at your use of the word intelligent. I started a course at the OU 8 or 9 years ago now and would have quite happily have used the phrase 3rd World, in fact to the correct audience still would, as communicating ideas is the goal, not sticking rigidly to a certain language. I am very informed about global inequalities and how peoples actions in one time or place impact impact other people negatively. But I no more intelligent than I was 8 or 9 years ago, just better informed or educated on a certain topic.
Something that frustrated me during the 8 or 9 years was the use of academic language, which whilst I understood the need for it between academics, thought it got in the way of delivering the message to the wider public. Sometimes I listen to Radio Programmes such as the Moral Maze or Thinking Allowed, and listen to some bright people and think they are seeking such academic language that the people they should be communicating the message to, the peoples whose actions they wish to change, will not have a clue what they are speaking about.

No point having a message if you cannot communicate it.

Happy New and have I mentioned Nutter ex Head Chef is building a restaurant opposite Rawtenstall Market, though how that will pan out, who knows.

We could stop lumping, say, the Central African Republic and Papua New Guinea together under one term altogether, I think that'd be a good idea. Whenever I hear people say "the 3rd world" I always wonder, which part? There's no really insightful statement to be made which covers all of what people think of as "the 3rd world." It's like when people say "Africa." Which bit? Cape Town, Tripoli, Lagos or Mt Kenya?

Always forgetting the bastard Rosé...

It's just half and half mix of red and white surely?

I think the problem is that "3rd World" is academic language, however it is academic language from the 1950's that is outmoded, misunderstood and has been heavily abused. Surely using a small group of more readily understood descriptive words and phrases actually makes things easier to understand for people who are not versed in the history of a subject. Ideally descriptive words that are not reliant on a world that didn't change irrevocably from 1989 onwards.

I spend a not insignificant part of my working life translating academic language, and far worse consultant speak, in to ideas and concepts that are able to resonate with the wider public, it is an ongoing battle and something that I think is very important. International development really isn't my area, but it feels to me like use of terms like 3rd World need correcting, not because of political correctness, but because they detract from increasing understanding.

I'm only an ocassional listener to the Moral Maze or Thinking Aloud, but they don't appear to me to be pitched at an academic audience, but a Radio 4 audience, which they perhaps consider a more informed audience than the general public as a whole, but not necessarily one that is versed in the subject at an academic level, which of course I'm not for 99% of the things they discuss. Maybe if I listened more I would agree with you, but from my limited experience I'd say that I don't.

I remember you mentioning the ex Nutters guy setting up in Rawtenstall. Got to admit I've never been a huge fan of Nutters and I've never even been to the Bird at Birtle.

Illegal in France, that

Very French law IMO

Personally I think international development / foreign policy, through the ballot box and lobbying is a better thing to concentrate on than individual altruism. However, I understand that where this is effective it is essentially replacing effective international development at governmental and intergovernmental level and accept a need to support to an extent. Something I do to an extent, although I won't claim 10%. I do however pay all my taxes and expect that money in part to be used to support programmes that reduce inequality at home and internationally. I vote and lobby on that basis.

 If you can show me where I have said that I'm dismissive of the UN then you win the argument.

If you can't then I suggest that you owe me an apology as the second person on this thread to deliberately misquote me. It's a dirty trick and you should be ashamed of yourself. 

I'd like to think of myself as essentially a good person. You don't know me but here are a few facts:-

I'm not a racist. 

My politics are left of centre.

I give money to charity. 

I volunteer a lot of my time to charity.

I'd vote to rejoin the EU tomorrow. 

I firmly believe that anyone who dislikes the stated aims of the UN is an idiot. 

I'm much better informed on world affairs than most people I know and (I would guess) probably 75% of the population.o

You think I should go and have my world view "updated" despite the fact that I update it every day. You admitted that it sounds patronising and you're right but, beyond that, it sounds arrogant, dismissive of the rights of others to hold opinions and a little bit imperious.

You don't want me to update my world view, you want everyone to harmonise their world view with yours.

But there again 'Developing Countries' is just as vague.

This is a very emotional response to what is essentially a factual statement, that your use and defence of the term third world is outmoded and inaccurate. I'm genuinely sorry that you've taken it in that way.

I will admit that I made it a bit more personal by suggesting you update your world view but if you're going to defend outmoded usage then that's something you need to be prepared for.

As for all the things you list above that you do, I'm not drawing that into question, just your defence of that one term. You can be wrong about that one term and still get to be and do all those great things.

My experience is that when I have a strong emotional response a view being challenged it's my cue to have a good hard look at that view.

As for the UN thing, I thought I'd made it clear that when I said 'organisations working in global development' I meant the UN and that you had made it clear you put little value such organisations. Can we put that one down to the limitations of web forum discussion?

Have a like. 

I'm trying to disentangle myself from the whole sorry discussion, but every time I look at ukc there's another of those little, red, notification boxes next to the 3rd World thread.

I'm frankly stunned by the depth of feeling against a phrase that everyone seems recognise as being inoffensive - a phrase that I rarely use anyway; I can't even remember the last time! You've succeeded insofar as I'll think long and hard before using it again. 

I'm also extremely surprised by the assumptions that people are prepared to make about others who use language differently to themselves. I'm probably guilty of this too, but I've never been on the receiving-end like that and it wasn't pleasant. 

Well you've had a rough ride on this thread and met some of the UKC 'Rotweillers' who like a dog with a bone don't give up. Between them they've managed to drive quite a few away from these forums,  rather a dubious distinction I think. The secret is never apologise because that doesn't stop them they just see that as a weakness and they'll exploit it ,they use words like 'silly' and 'cant believe intelligent people' or 'I cant be bothered to engage with stupid people' all calculated to intimidate. Just hang in there your point of view is just as relevant as their point of view what ever they say.