Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 whembly wrote:

 Kain wrote:


Why does Virginia hate your state and pretty much anyone else who was part of the Confederacy so much? Seems kind of hypocritical given that they were the nucleus of what they seem to hate so much for quite a while.

I have no clue what you're talking about...

Is it because our baseball team (The St. Louis Cardinals) defeated their team (The Washington Nationals)in exciting fashion in the 2012 NL playoff?

*shrugs*

I once suggested that Virginia was "southern" and got an ear lashing from my neighbor who swore up and down that Virginia was a "central" state and that the south was a place for "uneducated swath". This seemed to be a common opinion in Richmond.

 Kain wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kain wrote:


Why does Virginia hate your state and pretty much anyone else who was part of the Confederacy so much? Seems kind of hypocritical given that they were the nucleus of what they seem to hate so much for quite a while.

I have no clue what you're talking about...

Is it because our baseball team (The St. Louis Cardinals) defeated their team (The Washington Nationals)in exciting fashion in the 2012 NL playoff?

*shrugs*

I once suggested that Virginia was "southern" and got an ear lashing from my neighbor who swore up and down that Virginia was a "central" state and that the south was a place for "uneducated swath". This seemed to be a common opinion in Richmond.

Virginia is still southern.

 Kain wrote:
[
I once suggested that Virginia was "southern" and got an ear lashing from my neighbor who swore up and down that Virginia was a "central" state and that the south was a place for "uneducated swath". This seemed to be a common opinion in Richmond.

Virginia is a Southern state... o.O

Not sure why it's an issue.

Must be all the DC transplants.

EDIT: ninja'ed.

 whembly wrote:

 Kain wrote:
[
I once suggested that Virginia was "southern" and got an ear lashing from my neighbor who swore up and down that Virginia was a "central" state and that the south was a place for "uneducated swath". This seemed to be a common opinion in Richmond.

Virginia is a Southern state... o.O

Not sure why it's an issue.

Must be all the DC transplants.

EDIT: ninja'ed.

I told them that they were "Southerners in denial" and never spoke to those neighbors again. This attitude combined with Richmonder's bad habit of getting on their cell phones at the most inconvenient time on the road, general belligerence to everyone, and breathtaking ignorance made my parents and later me grow to thoroughly loathe the state.

 Kain wrote:
I was unaware that most foreign policy analysts were wrong and that the terms third and first world died with the cold war. And I think the context I put it in was clear, Missouri from what I've been told has a developmental level more akin to nations like South Africa or Egypt than to say California or Parisian France. I'd be glad to be wrong though, because the stereotypes passed around about the rest of the south in Virginia seemed to be horrendously unfair and somewhat racist.

I think the words developed, developing and underdeveloped nations are more appropriate when describing the overall well-being of a country.

whembly wrote:There's no 3rd world living here... o.O

You sure about that? Because Missouri seems to have some high poverty rates.

I'm not trying to put down the whole state, but I think it's very easy to say that parts of MO could be considered to be at 3rd-world levels. East St. Louis comes to mind.

As to the education bit, I cannot say for certain. But a very quick Google search produced these results:

Missouri ranks 41st in Education
Missouri ranks 47th in Education
Missouri ranks 9th in Education

That's quite the spread. I think there are a few important notes: specifically, the third link (ranks 9th in ed.) is listed as highly dubious given MO only cracked the top ten in a single category, yet made the top ten overall. Also, I think all these rankings should be taken with a grain of salt, as few of them record and compare based on the same factors (for example, some only rank based on math and reading, but not science; some rankings incorporate choice of school and on-time graduation as important factors in the rankings).

I'd be really curious to see some numbers that break down standardized testing scores (I hate those, btw- but it's the easiest to compare in a quanitifiable way) in categories such as Math, Science, Reading, On-Time Graduation, and SAT scores (not to be confused with post-secondary attendance, as that involves mostly economic factors). I have a suspicion that MO would do well in some categories, but fare very poorly overall (due to Young-Earth charter schools absolutely ruining the state's science ranking).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cheesecat wrote:

 Kain wrote:
I was unaware that most foreign policy analysts were wrong and that the terms third and first world died with the cold war. And I think the context I put it in was clear, Missouri from what I've been told has a developmental level more akin to nations like South Africa or Egypt than to say California or Parisian France. I'd be glad to be wrong though, because the stereotypes passed around about the rest of the south in Virginia seemed to be horrendously unfair and somewhat racist.

I think the words developed, developing and underdeveloped nations are more appropriate when describing the overall well-being of a country.

I think those three categories translate very nicely to 1st-, 2nd- and 3rd-worlds, as that is how they are commonlyused and widely accepted in a post-Cold-War context.

I guess, but weren't there some developed nations that were neutral in the Cold War?

 Cheesecat wrote:
I guess, but weren't there some developed nations that were neutral in the Cold War?

Fun fact: Sweden was classified as a third world country, while South Korea which was until the 80s poorer than the North, was a first world nation. (To be fair, the Soviet Union and China were pumping a lot of money into North Korea back then.)

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:There's no 3rd world living here... o.O

You sure about that? Because Missouri seems to have some high poverty rates.

Yes... I'm sure about that.

Before we go any further, what is YOUR definition of "3rd world living"?

I'm not trying to put down the whole state, but I think it's very easy to say that parts of MO could be considered to be at 3rd-world levels.

Same could be said of just about every major Cities dude. o.O

East St. Louis comes to mind.

That's in Illinois. And yes, THAT city has issues.

As to the education bit, I cannot say for certain. But a very quick Google search produced these results:

Missouri ranks 41st in Education
Missouri ranks 47th in Education
Missouri ranks 9th in Education

That's quite the spread. I think there are a few important notes: specifically, the third link (ranks 9th in ed.) is listed as highly dubious given MO only cracked the top ten in a single category, yet made the top ten overall. Also, I think all these rankings should be taken with a grain of salt, as few of them record and compare based on the same factors (for example, some only rank based on math and reading, but not science; some rankings incorporate choice of school and on-time graduation as important factors in the rankings).

I'd be really curious to see some numbers that break down standardized testing scores (I hate those, btw- but it's the easiest to compare in a quanitifiable way) in categories such as Math, Science, Reading, On-Time Graduation, and SAT scores (not to be confused with post-secondary attendance, as that involves mostly economic factors). I have a suspicion that MO would do well in some categories, but fare very poorly overall (due to Young-Earth charter schools absolutely ruining the state's science ranking).

*Sigh*
You really have no idea what you're talking about.

Just stay in your Ivory Tower... m'kay?

 Kain wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
I guess, but weren't there some developed nations that were neutral in the Cold War?

Fun fact: Sweden was classified as a third world country, while South Korea which was until the 80s poorer than the North, was a first world nation.

Which is why I'm thinking developed, developing and underdeveloped are better terms as they seem to give a better description of the country's status.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Kain wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
I guess, but weren't there some developed nations that were neutral in the Cold War?

Fun fact: Sweden was classified as a third world country, while South Korea which was until the 80s poorer than the North, was a first world nation.

Which is why I'm thinking developed, developing and underdeveloped are better terms as they seem to give a better description of the country's status.

Definitions change and mutate over time. When the Soviet Union fell and the Second World effectively died, the definition of Nth-world changed dramatically.

That's sort of what I'm alluding to.

 Cheesecat wrote:
That's sort of what I'm alluding to.

If definitions remained static then Gay would still mean happy and/or prostitute and a certain F word would still mean cigarettes. I don't see anyone trying to return those words to their roots.

 Kain wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
That's sort of what I'm alluding to.

If definitions remained static then Gay would still mean happy and/or prostitute and a certain F word would still mean cigarettes. I don't see anyone trying to return those words to their roots.

Sort of, I think certain cultures still use those words for those definitions like in the UK they use the f-word for cigarettes (as far as I'm aware) so yeah language is a constantly changing thing but also the same language will be a little different depending on the culture.

Whembly wrote:Before we go any further, what is YOUR definition of "3rd world living"?

Below the poverty line; coupled with lack of basic amenities and very little infrastructure. Borderline starvation. What's your definition?

Whembly wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:I'm not trying to put down the whole state, but I think it's very easy to say that parts of MO could be considered to be at 3rd-world levels.

Same could be said of just about every major Cities dude. o.O

MO's poverty rate is growing at triple the national average. I think that means it can be said about more cities in MO than elsewhere.

Whembly wrote:

azazel the cat wrote: East St. Louis comes to mind.

That's in Illinois. And yes, THAT city has issues.

I was actually referring to the East side of St. Louis, MO. As displayed in the link I posted, which shows 60-80% of residents living below the poverty line.

Whembly wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:As to the education bit, I cannot say for certain. But a very quick Google search produced these results:

Missouri ranks 41st in Education
Missouri ranks 47th in Education
Missouri ranks 9th in Education

That's quite the spread. I think there are a few important notes: specifically, the third link (ranks 9th in ed.) is listed as highly dubious given MO only cracked the top ten in a single category, yet made the top ten overall. Also, I think all these rankings should be taken with a grain of salt, as few of them record and compare based on the same factors (for example, some only rank based on math and reading, but not science; some rankings incorporate choice of school and on-time graduation as important factors in the rankings).

I'd be really curious to see some numbers that break down standardized testing scores (I hate those, btw- but it's the easiest to compare in a quanitifiable way) in categories such as Math, Science, Reading, On-Time Graduation, and SAT scores (not to be confused with post-secondary attendance, as that involves mostly economic factors). I have a suspicion that MO would do well in some categories, but fare very poorly overall (due to Young-Earth charter schools absolutely ruining the state's science ranking).

*Sigh*
You really have no idea what you're talking about.

Just stay in your Ivory Tower... m'kay?

Why don't you tell me what I'm talking about, then? Because I don't think my citations nor my hypothesis is in any way unreasonable. Please, enlighten me here. Cite sources as well. Exactly what part am I dead wrong about?

 azazel the cat wrote:

Whembly wrote:Before we go any further, what is YOUR definition of "3rd world living"?

Below the poverty line; coupled with lack of basic amenities and very little infrastructure. Borderline starvation. What's your definition?

Like this:


That's our disconnect.

You know what... if you think we're in a gak hole... fine, I don't care.

Just because many people are below the poverty line, doesn't mean they're not recieving help. I went to High School in the city in the #1 fething school in the state... in THAT east St. Louis city area, where I grew up with those poor pre-dominitely black family.

So, stop insinuating things.

As for Education, google-fu MAP for 3rd grade to 8th grade results and ACT collegiate entrance exams in MO.

MO is a cool place to live, but I'm biased since I've lived here since I was 2yo...

I didn't say I think Missouri is a gak hole; I've only ever been to St. Louis once. The airport. Can't say from just that. I just think your "MO is the bestest" position is incongruous with every single piece of data that I could.

But I'm legitimately curious about the education bit; though I can't find anything that you're referring to. Everything for ACT that I search for just comes up with registration instructions. What source are you using?

 azazel the cat wrote:
I didn't say I think Missouri is a gak hole; I've only ever been to St. Louis once. The airport. Can't say from just that.

To be fair to you... our Airport does suck bad. So, if that's all you've seen, I'm sorry. If you're in town again, I'm serious PM and I'll show you around.

I just think your "MO is the bestest" position is incongruous with every single piece of data that I could.

I said MO holds up well compared to CA and Paris, France... I do admit that I'm biased, so we need some other dakkanaut to chime in... djones? You're from Detroit, right? We ain't so bad...

But I'm legitimately curious about the education bit; though I can't find anything that you're referring to. Everything for ACT that I search for just comes up with registration instructions. What source are you using?

gak ton of data here:
http://mcds.dese.mo.gov/quickfacts/Pages/District-and-School-Information.aspx

Here's MO's ranking:
http://www.usnews.com/education/best-high-schools/missouri

Here's my HS's ranking (notice the national rank):
http://www.usnews.com/education/best-high-schools/missouri/districts/st-louis-public-schools/metro-academic-and-classical-high-school-11941

For ACT scores:

Right, but that data isn't representative of Missouri's standing based on the national levels, which is what we're kinda talking about. For example, the ACT link listed MO as 26th.

As a side note, according to the ACT link you posted, my prediction of science ratings being the worst of the categories appears accurate (thank the charter schools for that).

 azazel the cat wrote:
Right, but that data isn't representative of Missouri's standing based on the national levels, which is what we're kinda talking about. For example, the ACT link listed MO as 26th.

As a side note, according to the ACT link you posted, my prediction of science ratings being the worst of the categories appears accurate (thank the charter schools for that).

Comparing is actually difficult if you can't use ACT/SAT or something similar...

Each state uses their own standardized testing... so, *shrugs* not sure what I can do.

 Kain wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
-snip=

According to my understanding of America, Missouri is kind of like a third world nation in overall development and has some of the most uneducated people in the entire country as well as an astronomical crime rate and imbibes a massive amount of alcohol. So I'm going to lean towards this ending in disaster sooner than later.

I live in Kentucky and have lots of family in Missouri, I can assure you of two things

1. Missouri is not a third world country

and 2. Neither is Kentucky, although our infrastructure is definitely a bit worse than Missouri.

Unless you visit trailerparks/the eastern mountains of Kentucky. If you start hearing banjos, RUN.

Also, Virginians are southern. I find that hilarious that anyone from there could think that they're "not" part of the South. They were one of the most prominent states of the Confederacy.

Although from the sound of it you just had a crazy neighbor. I doubt most Virginians are that crazy.

The closest you'd get to "third world" in the US would be some areas of West Virginia along with the various ghettos of our major cities, New York, LA, and Chicago being notable examples of cities with poorer neighborhoods.

 Grey Templar wrote:
The closest you'd get to "third world" in the US would be some areas of West Virginia along with the various ghettos of our major cities, New York, LA, and Chicago being notable examples of cities with poorer neighborhoods.

There is severe rural poverty in more than just West Virginia.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 Kain wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
-snip=

According to my understanding of America, Missouri is kind of like a third world nation in overall development and has some of the most uneducated people in the entire country as well as an astronomical crime rate and imbibes a massive amount of alcohol. So I'm going to lean towards this ending in disaster sooner than later.

I live in Kentucky and have lots of family in Missouri, I can assure you of two things

1. Missouri is not a third world country

and 2. Neither is Kentucky, although our infrastructure is definitely a bit worse than Missouri.

Unless you visit trailerparks/the eastern mountains of Kentucky. If you start hearing banjos, RUN.

Also, Virginians are southern. I find that hilarious that anyone from there could think that they're "not" part of the South. They were one of the most prominent states of the Confederacy.

Although from the sound of it you just had a crazy neighbor. I doubt most Virginians are that crazy.

I found later on that Richmond tends to be rated as a rather unfavorable part of Richmond. The people in Virginia Beach, Alexandria, Norfolk, and Williamsburg were considerably more tolerable. It just seems that Richmond gets the worst of it. They're in that bad category of city that's small enough to have the issues with small communities but large enough to have all the issues of big cities. I vividly recall one person on her cell phone who parked in the only exit from the wal-mart supercenter at Henrico and when my mom horned her to get off the exit before texting she was met with a middle finger. Another richmonder my mom knew asked "Is South Africa overseas?" unironically. And one thought that Obama was republican and white.

I have often been left wondering how the people there remember to breathe given how conceited and painfully ignorant they tend to be.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
I live in Kentucky and have lots of family in Missouri, I can assure you of two things

1. Missouri is not a third world country

and 2. Neither is Kentucky, although our infrastructure is definitely a bit worse than Missouri.

Unless you visit trailerparks/the eastern mountains of Kentucky. If you start hearing banjos, RUN.

Also, Virginians are southern. I find that hilarious that anyone from there could think that they're "not" part of the South. They were one of the most prominent states of the Confederacy.

Although from the sound of it you just had a crazy neighbor. I doubt most Virginians are that crazy.

I'm a Virginian who had to spend a miserable amount of time living in Missouri a few years ago. The people there routinely referred to me as a Yankee despite the fact that I come from the capital of the Confederacy.

Kentucky's a scary place.




I'm glad I come from out west, where elbow room and civilization still live!

 Grey Templar wrote:
The closest you'd get to "third world" in the US would be some areas of West Virginia along with the various ghettos of our major cities, New York, LA, and Chicago being notable examples of cities with poorer neighborhoods.

You forgot Mississippi


I do think though, that based on various studies that are out there, the American poor are still much much more wealthy and better off than the poor of many nations in Africa and other countries that are still considered 3d World. Ie, many of our poorest people still have refrigeration, microwaves and satellite television, etc.

 Hordini wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The closest you'd get to "third world" in the US would be some areas of West Virginia along with the various ghettos of our major cities, New York, LA, and Chicago being notable examples of cities with poorer neighborhoods.

There is severe rural poverty in more than just West Virginia.

I'm sure, but no areas that come to mind.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The closest you'd get to "third world" in the US would be some areas of West Virginia along with the various ghettos of our major cities, New York, LA, and Chicago being notable examples of cities with poorer neighborhoods.

You forgot Mississippi


I do think though, that based on various studies that are out there, the American poor are still much much more wealthy and better off than the poor of many nations in Africa and other countries that are still considered 3d World. Ie, many of our poorest people still have refrigeration, microwaves and satellite television, etc.

This is true.

 Seaward wrote:

I'm a Virginian who had to spend a miserable amount of time living in Missouri a few years ago. The people there routinely referred to me as a Yankee despite the fact that I come from the capital of the Confederacy.

Miserably time?

Was it the heat?

Azz... you'd melt here.