elbucho @ elbucho @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

376

Joined

2 yr. ago

Yeah, so was second world because of Russia or because of communism?

Err... yes. It was essentially a capitalist vs communist thing, but really it was more "US-aligned" versus "USSR-aligned", since the US and USSR were the two big superpowers with guns and nukes pointed at each other. First world meant "the US, and people who like the US", second world meant "The USSR and the people who like the USSR", and third world was everybody who wasn't aligned politically with either major player. With the fall of the Soviet Union, the phrase "second world" pretty much fell entirely out of use. I'm not sure why "first world" and "third world" ended up sticking around in the lexicon, but their meanings morphed to "rich countries" and "poor / developing countries", respectively.

My guess (and this is pure speculation) is that the terms stuck around because they were related to foreign policy. Because the foreign policy wonks were primed to think of the world in terms of blocs of allies or as spheres of influence from decades of the cold war, it's probable that they had gotten used to referring to their allies as "other first world nations", and to the countries they sought to influence as "third world nations". The Vietnam war, for example, was a proxy war fought against the USSR, where half of Vietnam was second-world-aligned, and the other half was first-world-aligned. Prior to those lines being drawn in the sand, it was a third world country. The same could also be said about Korea. Also, pretty much the entire continent of Africa was an ideological battleground between the US and the USSR, as both vied to woo, coerce, and force individual countries into their respective spheres of influence. Because the terms "first world" and "third world" were so frequently used as a matter of policy, it's easy to see how the use of those terms could persist even after the original definitions became obsolete.

As for why a numbering scheme was initially employed... it's unimportant; simply an easy way of distinguishing between teams. If the USSR had originated the concept, chances are they'd have put themselves as first world, with the US & affiliated nations as second world. Or they might have used letter designations instead of numbers. Or color coding. It doesn't really matter in the end.

You know? I didn't even really consider that, due to the fact that the original definitions pretty much lost their meanings with the fall of the USSR. However, since Putin's basically working to recreate it now, it seems like those definitions are relevant once again, so yeah - you're absolutely right.

Technically, Ireland, Sweden, Finland, and Switzerland are all 3rd world nations. At least, according to the original definition.

Edit: this isn't meant to counter the point made by the comic. I just think it's interesting.

For a deeper gut punch, remember that in "Heart of Gold", Zoe tells Wash that she wants to have a baby with him, and she won't brook any of his lame excuses, like "the universe is too dangerous for kids". It's possible that if there was ever a second movie or a continuation of the series, they'd say that Zoe did get pregnant just before all of the shit went down, but with it being abandoned IP, we have to guess. So what do you think? Is there a mini Wash in Zoe's future?

Wash's, in "Serenity". It was just so unexpected and abrupt, and it served to generate a sense of unease in the viewer; after Wash's death, no character seemed to be protected by plot armor. Granted, Shepherd Book bit it before Wash did, but the movie seemed to set him up to be separate from the rest of the crew. I loved that Whedon played with this concept of fragility in the ensuing battle, with Kaylee getting darted, Zoe getting sliced up, and Simon getting shot. And then, Mal's battle with the agent... I thought the misdirect was masterfully done.

I've been affected by character deaths before and since, but Wash's death was the only death I've seen in media that has made me worry for the safety of the other characters. It made a lot of sense outside of the movie, too, as "Serenity" was more or less a tribute to some IP that was never going to get resurrected. While watching the movie for the first time, I was left thinking: "what if Whedon just said 'fuck it'?"

Everyone knows he’d grab a monkey by the tit

Hello, new favorite phrase.

Is that why Rudolph's nose glows?

Bro... I think you need to take a step back and set the crack pipe down. He's guilty. Hell, he's guilty as fuck. He 100% did it. And I celebrate the hell out of him for it. That man is a fucking hero for doing what he did. Go Luigi. I hope with every fiber of my being that when it goes to trial, the jurors say "not guilty" despite knowing that he's guilty as fuck. That probably won't happen because reality just ain't cool like that, but that's what I hope.

... What?

Humans are just exceptionally weak to cute. If aliens ever show up and try to conquer us, we're going to be so screwed if they happen to be adorable.

I mean, it'd probably only take like 4 or 5 CEOs getting shot before we get some good, common-sense gun control legislation passed. We've got to protect our people*, you know?

For certain very limited definitions of the word "people".

I think it all boils down to that nebulous concept of "the social contract". The most naive interpretation of the justice system is that it will provide justice when justice is demanded. It is, after all, called "the justice system". But what constitutes justice? And who receives it? We have already seen two separate supreme court decisions that state unequivocally that the police are neither obligated to serve nor protect people. We have also seen that young black men are 7 times more likely to be falsely convicted of serious crimes than young white men, so we know that the justice system does not work for all of us. We know that rich people get convicted far less often, and for far shorter sentences than poor people, and we know that the legal system saps the opportunity to acquire generational wealth from those who do get convicted.

It is illegal to shoplift $100 of groceries from a corporation, but it is perfectly legal for that same corporation to drive out competition and then raise prices, in essence stealing from the entire community. It is illegal to intentionally harm someone, but it is perfectly legal for a medical insurance company to deny coverage to paying customers for necessary medical intervention.

When justice is completely out of reach by legal means, the flimsy fiction of the social contract is voided. New York City has somewhere in the neighborhood of 900 murders per year, which means that there have probably been 5 or 6 other people who have been murdered in the city since Brian Thompson was shot. Are the police putting the same effort into tracking the killers of those people as they are into Brian Thompson's murderer? The reality is that the vast majority of us are intentionally excluded from the halls of power. The American Declaration of Independence makes the bold claim that it is a self-evident truth that all men are created equal. Does the present situation in this country feel to you like equality? Because to me, it feels like there is an owner class, and a peasant class, and brother... we ain't the owners.

They're likely just going to execute him when they find him so as to not allow that. Say he was brandishing or something.

If the people doing the coup end up writing the history books, it gets called a revolution.

Do some people here not realize that if we start allowing this kind of extra-judiciary assassinations

The fact that he's wanted for murder and is the subject of an active manhunt seems to suggest that extrajudicial assassinations are not, in fact, allowed. In fact, I might be so bold as to suggest that the justice department generally frowns on them.

Sure thing, buddy. Here you go:

Well, unfortunately the guy used an e-bike with GPS tracking on it as his getaway vehicle, so I very much doubt he's going to get away with it. But yes - I agree with you on the death penalty. Shit gets complicated when the state gets involved.

But those who think that they are virtuous have no problem celebrating this guy being killed calling it karma. And this comment will be totally downvoted because how dare someone point out their hypocrisy.

"Virtue" is a relative thing. What is virtuous to one person might not be virtuous to another. You, for example, seem to believe that celebrating the death of someone is unvirtuous, even if that person was a monster. This is pure speculation on my part, but I'm also guessing that you hold the belief that nobody deserves to die.

These beliefs are not universal. While you would be a hypocrite for violating your own strongly held beliefs, it would not be accurate to apply that label to someone who doesn't hold those beliefs. For example, I believe that death is the worst punishment you can give to a person. I also believe that some people absolutely deserve it. I would not find it virtuous to falsely pretend otherwise. I have no moral qualms with celebrating the death of someone who I think deserves it. Similarly, I have no qualms about celebrating good things that happen to a person who I think deserves them. In both cases, I consider those things to be the universe working out as it should.

You've never wished for the death of serial killers? Rapists? Pedophiles? Dictators? Animal abusers? The odd mime?

Somehow, I don't believe you. But, on the off chance that you're telling the truth... this is for you: