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.

Its interesting that 'First World' problems are trivialized while they are real problems. We mentally assign them lesser importance because we assume the stakes are low since we live in a country that doesn't have the same issues as a poorer country(arguably this is false). The life and experiences of someone living in the US and someone living in the Republic of Chad are different, but a homeless person in the US is still fighting for survival. I've known plenty of people in the US that have to fight for survival to get food, a place to live, etc.

Someone who has difficulty reading or is from a country that has a low literacy rate would argue that typing something that requires the ability to read would be more work than its worth. Just tell someone or talk about it with someone in person. Why are we even doing all this work typing the stuff out rather than just talking about it? Seems more work than its worth right?

There is a entire block of 'entertainers' in the social media world called 'influencers'. They generate income and attention on products just by displaying and using the products. Major retail companies generate business by displaying ads and trying to make their products go viral. Just because something 'seems lazy' doesn't necessarily make it ineffective. I would hit on the religious undertones of what you are discussing but that is forbidden here.

Side note - First World - US, UK, allies - etc; Second World - Russia, China, soviet bloc - etc; Third World is neutral, non aligned. It isn't tied to income or economic power. Sweden for instance would be considered a Third World country.

nfe wrote:


But no one calls a person's homelessness a FWP just because they're homeless in Canada and not South Sudan? It specifically refers to problems that are, in the grand scheme of things, insignificant, because their being perceived as problems requires considerable comfort. Not being able to buy food is a problem wherever you are and no one claims it's trivial if you happen to be in Baltimore rather than Mombasa. Not being able to buy the right spelt flour for this week's baking game with Tabitha and Monty is a first world problem.

Stress is stress no matter where you are. Its interesting that people think trivial issues only occur in 'First World' countries and not in other places. It is somewhat appalling the lack of compassion people show by just assigning developing countries the moniker 'Third World' because they aren't up to snuff with the 'First World' countries. Quite elitist in my opinion.

nfe wrote:

 Jjohnso11 wrote:


Stress is stress no matter where you are. Its interesting that people think trivial issues only occur in 'First World' countries and not in other places.

Nobody thinks that. Or at least, there's nothing in the use of 'first world problems' in and of itself that implies that belief.

Nobody thinks stress is stress or nobody thinks that trivial issues only occur in "First World' countries. Does someone in Sweden or India call a 'trivial' computer issue a 'First World' problem or a 'Third World' problem? Your confusion on the statement that saying First World is an elitist thing said by countries that project they are better than other countries is telling. Do you think that people in Third World countries are 24/7 fighting for survival and not capable of the comfort of a trivial issue?

nfe wrote:
As above, in virtually all modern usage 'third world' means 'developing world' not unaligned nations in WWII. That said, I have many Turkish, Kurdish, and Arab friends that do refer to trivial issues as first world problems, yes.
EDIT: thinking about it, I definitely have Indian and Swedish friends that use it too, but they would definitely consider themselves to love in the first world!
For what it's worth, I probably spend more time with people across the socioeconomic spectrum in the developing world than you. So no, I don't think that.

My undergraduate is in Sociology so... I've done a little travel and a little studying on the socioeconomic spectrum in the developing world.

Considering French demographer Alfred Sauvy wrote of "Three worlds, one planet" in an article published in L'Observateur in 1952 that would relate to the Cold War and not WWII. I'm sure your friends choose not to refer to themselves as Third World because it is considered derogatory on the assumption that if you aren't First World you are impoverished and trivial issues don't occur. Or they don't know what or where it came from. Social media has a way of convincing people that certain terms or labels are being used correctly.

Just because people chose to convert a label/term in an effort to demean or talk down to other countries doesn't mean its being correctly used. All this information on the internet and in books...

nfe wrote:
I'm happy to deal with this point by point but I've no idea what you are even trying to argue anymore so I don't know what it actually achieves. Maybe you could clarify what your main thrust is?

I don't know what you mean by 'deal with this point by point' when you took my original post and cut out parts to make an argument against bits of a whole. My point is that perception changes what we think is trivial and what is not trivial. The issue I have with the original post is saying that problems in developing countries are more serious than problems in post modern countries. Which is a false narrative because everyone is 'fighting for survival' we just do that using different means and different ways. A student stressing about passing a final in college may not seem as stressful as the issues someone is going through in a developing country. This is a shallow interpretation of the issue because the student stressing is really stressing about their future(jobs, future housing, family planning).

The expression as I've stated before is elitist and was seemingly started by someone on social media looking for a laugh or attention. What I'm addressing in my responses is geared toward this statement.

'People's problems in the first world seem more and more trivial and those needs must be met.'

If you didn't read the original post and you were solely responding to my posts we're playing a game of talking past each other because I'm defending my response to a specific post and to make a point.