Fishin' in the stream of consciousness (all-purpose, no topic chat thread)

I am at least as mad at Amazon and google et all for creating the situation. It doesn't matter how secure they try to make it, if it's on the internet it's not secure. I was just trying to point out a vulnerability, and why we can never trust any of these big shiny companies that collect all the data and promise to keep it safe, because it will always be worth someone's effort to find the exploit. If you don't like how i phrased it please feel free to offer another way. I use the words I know.

Related:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/op...nals-find-wonderland-in-developing-countries/

 

literally 'it will always be worth someone's effort to find the exploit' is a perfectly good way to phrase it. idk why you're so attached to the idea of ~ooo scary foreign hackers~ when the US has enough hackers and doxxers.
"Third world" and "developing" country are both terminology models steeped in colonialist discourse (the discourse analysis kind, not the tumblr kind). The entire categorization system is useless bordering on actively offensive depending on context it is used in. It is vague, sloppy and inherently judgemental, as well as framing the entire world form a colonialist-capitalist western perspective. Anything worthwhile that could be expressed by any of those words is better served by using more precise terminology (countries with lacking welfare programs, countries with a low average income, countries with monolithic industry/exports, Formerly Colonialized Nations, Victims of the Care Labor Export Pipelines, Countries exploited by Western Industries for cheap labor, etc)
like i'm sorry if you feel attacked by this being pointed out but ngl the way you talk about this sounds kinda like you got sold a conspiracy piece filled with bonus racism. I'm sure you don't mean ill. But the way you phrased that had some serious unreflected biases and unless you actually intended to whip up a panicked mob about ~third world cybercriminals~ maybe you should, like, reconsider your wording, and examine where that focus on who the bad actor needing highlighting in that situation is actually comes from.

 

Ok, let me try to rephrase. This particular exploit would not be worthwhile for someone living in a country with a strong economy and a significant law enforcement presence, but would be well worth it for someone in a country with a very weak economy, and weak or corrupt law enforcement. This is true of a lot of cyber crime that is labor intensive with a low payout per hour. This type of crime is concentrated in those countries. Is it insensitive to make these observations?

What's a suitably sensitive but concise word for a country with a very weak economy, and weak or corrupt law enforcement? And yes, those same countries are very likely to have those other traits you mentioned, so I see nothing wrong with a single term to refer to the category.

Yes, it's judgmental to call a poor nation poor. After making observations, you make a judgement. How is that bad?

 

Hmm, seems there's no good answer:
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsa...ll-it-the-third-world-what-should-you-call-it

If I were to use "majority world nation" or "lean nation" no one would know what I was talking about. I certainly wouldn't have known if someone said that to me. It seems that calling a spade a spade offends the spade (or more often offends others on behalf of the spade), so we have to invent new terms for spades.

 

no like dude. Making the observation that a country has poor law enforcement and stagnant economic growth isn't ~problematic~ except insofar as any judgement on capitalist terms is a bit problematic (again. in the discourse analysis 'maybe we should think about where this comes from' sense, not the tumblr 'kill it immediately, with fire' sense.)
The issue with 'third world' or 'developing' is a) the colonialism inherent in the categorization and b) the fact that it groups super dissimilar countries together based on an assumption of 'West = good, developed; Rest = Poor, shitty' Also like the words you say are again. twee at best. Downright ridiculous at worst. Just say what you actually mean to communicate. The internet doesn't charge you on a per word basis.
I mean I'm also still questioning why you bring up cybercriminals in countries with poor economies and law enforcement up when you know. You have accurately in your second or third post on this topic identified the big data black hole companies as the actual culprits to be paranoid about. There's literally no reason to bring up the last tailend of the train of cybersecurity fuckery, especially not in a conversation you namedrop the goddamn panopticon in. You're clearly not uneducated, could you like. At least act like it and do the minimal engagement of 'Mh, if someone says a specific way i brought something up seemed a bit steeped in colonialist assumptions, maybe I should examine where that thought/impulse actually came from' instead of handwringing about a single kinda shit categorization scheme being taken away from you?

classy to equate outdated kind of offensive language and also deeply shitty prioritization to ~just calling a spade a spade~, but go off I guess.
If we're going with this clunky metaphor, you're not calling a spade a spade, you're calling it 'a garbage tier garden tool' and also implying that maybe if it grew up into a proper shovel it wouldn't be literally at fault for burglary in the United States. That's the issue i had with your statement.

 

I like to use clear and concise language when ever possible, rather than spell out a paragraph for each term I use in a sentence. This is the first I've ever heard of the term "third world" being offensive to anyone. I've asked for a suitable replacement term, both here and on another forum, and instead I get rants about how I'm being insensitive to their plight by even mentioning them, unless perhaps if I were to post a dissertation on their exploitation first. I've even got people claiming there is no such category and I need to name each country I'm referring to individually. It seems as though the language has been distorted so as to prevent honest discourse.

In my original post I did not focus on third world nations, but mentioned them in passing as a part of an imagined scenario, which I still hold to be realistic. I didn't talk about Amazon's part in this because I thought it too obvious to mention.

http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/third-world-countries/

 

You were granted multiple alternative terms, with Formerly Colonized Nation being I think the most concise one for your purposes. I'm pointing this out in case you missed it.

 

... dude. in what way is two people in a three people conversation happening to hold a similarish worldview and trying to have a sensible conversation about it a dog pile.
If I'm coming across as more outraged at the problematique language than maybe mildly peeved I apologize. It's not my intention to like project Supreme Woke Anger or anythign like that. I'm just personally not comfortable with the way that post was phrased, and thought I'd additionally point out that both "developing" and "third world" country are extremely outdated concepts.
Additionally I would like to point out that I wasn't the one who namedropped the Panopticon so if anyone raised the discussion's register to academic language it ain't me.

That's bc that category doesn't exist except as an artificial grouping based on a hierarchical worldview that places Western Civilization(tm) at the top of the global pecking order. I'm not saying you need to identify each country you mean, I'm saying you should at least attempt to accurately identify what you mean when you refer to a messy artificial categorization like 'developing country' or 'third world'.

Anyways I'm done with this discussion if @Kodachi is, ngl I don't actually like hearing myself talk enough to repeat the same point for another page and a half of handwringing about ~concise terminology~ anyways.

 

So unrelated, but kind of a weird question for something admittedly far in the future: traditionally speaking, do I have to wear white to my wedding? Because I just ain’t a fan of the look and I dream of a purple wedding dress specifically, but while I highly doubt my wedding is gonna be Super Traditional anyway, I don’t wanna risk judgment on the part of older relatives there, y’know?

Basically, is that a deviation from the norm that would raise TOO many eyebrows from Old People?

 

hmmm I think it may potentially due to the whole thing where like... i think since the 18th or 19th century wedding gowns being white is supposed to ~represent virginity~ it may spark some concerned words since presumably it'd be your first wedding which is traditionally the only opportunity for a white gown. Otoh white bridal dresses do not actually have a particularly long tradition and especially a sort of pastel-y purple shade is not unheard of at all. Kinda depends tbh? If you're really worried there's always the option of doing different dresses for different ceremonies/only wearing the white gown for the ceremony and a little purple number for the reception.
to be fair I am also in Germany so idk how common the divide between 'legal proceedings marriage' and 'the church ceremony' as being two seperate things that both get at least a bit of festivity even is in the US.

 

you could also go for 'off-white ddress with purple embelishments' if you wanted to play it a little saver. I think those are pretty accepted?

 

100% it depends on those relatives, and how much you care about their opinions. dresses of other pastel colors are pretty common, or white with some accent color, and lots of people get married in things that don't resemble a wedding dress at all. it's your wedding, after all! a super traditional older person might make a fuss, but that depends totally on the family dynamics and culture. for example, no one in my family would feel entitled to interfere or complain about someone's nontraditional wedding plans, although there might be some snippy comments behind the person's back. (which, if it were me, i would completely ignore, because it's my wedding!) but if you've got a pushier family, it might be a bigger issue.

 

My extended family isn’t pushy, but my grandma is Very Traditional just as a person?

 

from what i understand she'd probably be upset, but there's nothing actually stopping you wearing a purple dress or whatever outfit you please provided you either don't care or clear it with her.

eta: source: watching ridiculous amounts of say yes to the dress

 

Fair, I mean I probably was a bit more waspish than I actually meant to come across too.

 

my sister's dress, the above-waist part (extremely technical dress terms) was like, a pale pink instead of white, twas very pretty!! i think a lot more places are getting dresses that are white and some color as well as a thing that generally doesn't make grandmas upset but is more interesting than white
probably best to bring up your thoughts to relatives when it becomes a more immediate thing, or just as fun thanksgiving talk, to gauge whether it's something they might get upset by or not, and decide how much you care about that

 

Bodice! That´s the actual technical dress term!