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.

So I discussed this with some people on a discord and honestly I've been noticing this a lot with the first world in general. People's problems in the first world seem more and more trivial and those needs must be met. Not only that but I feel like our desire to fight for things we believe have taken a rather lazy approach. People can talk about people that write annoyed business reviews, mobility scooters, constant efforts to improve people's lives due to dissatisfaction with increasingly trivial things. I dunno I feel a lot of first world problems seem so minor. Some of our problems are legit like when poorer people have to work to make sure they can keep their living conditions or avoid being homeless but when I look at some things (esp. Hollywood or entertainment) I feel like it's a bigger deal to have issue with what's said often than what is done. Whether you believe in one thing or another some people seem to care more about what's said than actually helping people. My example is "thoughts and prayers" vs actually going out to a homeless shelter and working there or even so much as donating money for a wildfire. People want to feel like they did something by saying something rather than actually doing anything that takes effort and would help.

Is anybody else noticing this? I'm sure you have and it can be difficult to not make this political in one way or another but what are your guys' thoughts on the matter.

Edit: Because a friend thought I was saying the first world has no legit problems that's not what i'm saying. It's just sometimes we concentrate on rather small things and I feel there's a rise in constantly smaller issues that people demand need addressing. Also our way of mobilizing for some things (like through hashtags, verbal/virtual assaults and things like "thoughts and prayers") is quite lazy and seems to focus more on feeling good about doing little effort for something.

When people don't have any actual strife, they will create some. Humans have evolutionary mechanisms in place to deal with stressors. We've become so comfortable that we have very few actual stressors now. So conflict is created in order for us to appease those mechanisms. Of course thjs doesn't work because it's artificial and self created, and the cycle continues. This is obviously only a small part of the issue, there is much more potential discussion, but... Not sure how long this thread will last if I'm honest. Seems like risky territory.

A few thoughts:

1) This is nothing new in itself. They key difference between now and the past is that you've the internet and people can lazily make comments online and you can lazily read them. If you want you can even join groups and expose yourself to MASSES of this kind of information

So in some way just humans being what they always have been. Of course being affluent enough to own a computer and have time to post such things (which can often be generational too) means that you are hearing from a specific subset of the population.


2) Stress and frustrations are based on personal situation more than global situations. That you've not got your makeover in 4 weeks is a stress to some; it doesn't matter that some have not eaten a proper meal in 4 years in other parts of the world.

3) I'd argue that today we get bombarded by so much media asking for our money, our likes, our time, etc... that we've become somewhat more dulled to it. Indeed many charities have changed tactics in what and how they show and appeal for funding because showing sad scenes often doesn't work any more.

Indeed sometimes showing the positive results actually generates more money.

The key is that we are so heavily overwhelmed with this media that I think we often tune out of it to retain a sense of sanity (esp for those who empathise with others very readily).

My example is "thoughts and prayers" vs actually going out to a homeless shelter and working there or even so much as donating money for a wildfire.

Going to focus on this because it seems like the center of your topic. The thing about it is, this isn't a new behavior- you can easily find the same sentiment in the 18th and 19th centuries.

The big difference is, the Scrooge line about prisons, workhouses and decreasing the surplus population isn't socially acceptable anymore. But (then and now) there isn't a lot to incentivize actually taking action - which is why some gov't spending programs and church tithes exist (at least in theory), to force money away from people to do good, because most have never been willing to do good of their own volition.


At the same time though, I do think you're glossing over a lot of problems that aren't trivial and some actually try to do something about. Ignore celebrity stances on issues, and focus on things that need to get done- complaining about attention paid to 'trivial' problems only goes deeper down the trivial rabbit hole.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
Is anybody else noticing this?

I sure have. Just today on a forum for toy soldiers, someone had so few problems in their life they created a thread to complain about other people complaining about inane stuff. 2 degrees of inanity!

Stress, depression, anxiety.

All three affect me from time to time. And it’s not uncommon to hear or read stuff such as “what have you to be depressed about” etc.

Shame that’s not how such things work. At their core? They’re chemical imbalances in the brain. And they all have different triggers in different people.

Yet sufferers are often of a different mind, feeling the next person has it worse than them, despite their own depression.

Only thing I can say is that Misery Measuring does not help. The worst thing to happen to someone in their life is just that. It doesn’t matter that you, i or that person over there might’ve been through something worse.

It’s all perspective. And none of it should be discounted.

For me? I went sent over the edge by an over insistent consumer. My job is fairly stressful. I’ll have maybe 30-35 cases at anyone time, all in different levels of progression. I can be contacted by email, phone and letter.

Typically my timescales to resolve a case are around two months. It does vary, some I can crack out straight away, others take longer, especially if the bank are slow off the mark or just plain uncommunicative.

Most of the time, I love it. I like the pressure, and I perform well (one of the top in my division for quantity and quality).

Yet, once in a while, you get passive aggressive Words Not Allow On Dakka. That in itself is easy to deal with. Just have a firm conversation, reminding them I am NOT their advocate nor champion. By law I am independent and impartial. Majority of folk take a telling, and settle down.

But those that don’t? That make ever wilder demands of me and my time? The sort to phone me daily, even when I’ve told them the response time is two weeks, and I will not chase anyone until that timescale has passed? And each phone call is matched with twice daily emails demanding updates, or ‘judgement in default’, which isn’t something we do?

It’s.......it’s a lot. Ever had someone freak out at you for having the audacity to have a diary full of meetings, training, phone shifts etc? To get back to you desk to a voicemail of a foul mouthed tirade of abuse? I have.

And when I went over the edge the first time, I had three of them. Sadly, only two were actually cases in my name. The other was a whack job I’d worked a PPI case for months before, and decided I was now their personal Investigator.

Oh, and that’s also all around the time Channel 4 did an absolute hatchet job on us via Dispatches. Sure, we’re imperfect, but that was a documentary with a conclusion in search of evidence.

Now, in the grand scheme of things? Person Not Nice On Phone And Very Pushy isn’t, in fact, the worst thing that happens on earth. I get that. But, I am lucky enough it’s pretty much the worst thing to happen to me personally. And it was still the trigger for a depressive episode where I went to a very, very dark place, and was off work for around 3 months.

First World Problem or not, it’s still very real.

My issue isnt with people that do their jobs such as you grotsnik. My issue is with the people that have to complain to the service people for a while over something thats not a big deal. Thats actually more of the point of what i was saying actually.

Still a matter of perspective.

Some folk get really, really lucky in life, and live with a very easy ride. I find it hard to begrudge, as someone has to be the winner, no?

Do they go overboard sometimes? Sure. I’ve been a barman, waiter and hotel staff in my time.

But what we’ll never know is whether there’s an underlying reason. Maybe they’re being difficult with shop staff because they’re actually miserable in their own life, for whatever reason. Maybe they’re just the product of multiple generations of poor parenting, and they’ve not been raised to see people in the service industry as actual human beings just trying to get by. It could also be an expression of autism. We just don’t know.

I’ve absolutely met entitled jerks in my life. And one of my great joys is knocking them down a peg or two in my current job. Most, when stood up to by someone in a position of actual authority do backdown, and are even apologetic. Depends on your approach of course.

There’s also different takes on what makes a poor employee or poor customer.

For instance, I used to work as a GW Till Monkey (yes, I’ve had a varied career! 8.5 years at my current place though. So all settled down!).

I’d read comments and threads on Dakka and similar about alleged experiences in GW stores. Now, my experience there is entirely within the U.K. because that’s where I’ve lived my entire life. So it’s not universal. But I could still point out the posters I’d ban from a store (typically negative feedback about an ‘Alpha Nerd’ declaring the shop their own) and ‘yeah. I’m sure that happened, cool story bro’ type stuff.

Some folk just don’t gel. Some customers have rather high opinions of themselves. And some shop workers really aren’t cut out for the role*. So it all has to be taken with a pinch of salt.

Ever noticed how most Choosing Beggar stories have such clear cut good and bad guys?

*I get you got to take the jobs you can. Been there, done that. But even so, a little humility goes a long way!

I am confused by your "alpha nerd declaring a store his own" and negative feedback thereabout.

Are you saying you would ban people who complain that some jerkwad is being a bully inside a GW store and the other customers are pushed out of enjoying it? Or that you would ban the jerkwad who goes aroudn saying "this here MY store, you gonna play in it, you gotta play MY way" or some such nonsense?

Alpha geek?

Oh, sorry. Bad wording on my behalf.

Any store. GW or FLGS which allows a self appointed Alpha Nerd to arise has to deal with it, and not be afraid to ban them.

Because it’s not their store. Irrespective of how much money they/their parents Chuck at you, they’re never, ever the boss. Have a chat with them at first. Do your best to de-escalate. But if all else fails? A ban works wonders.

Every time I had to take such firm action, their former droogs soon got the message and loosened right up.

That depends grotsnik. Personally I've met most of the toxic people at the painting table. It's not all of them mind you but they tend to form their own clique and hate outsiders or people they don't gel with. The main ones seem pretty nasty.

As far as gaming goes at my gw there's a bit of that but not really. It's nothing like the painting table people which I find odd. To be fair it's a place of nerds and we are all awkward but 2 to 3 people in the store are just really nasty to the point even if I avoid them sometimes they respond with a nasty retort randomly. I actually had to talk with the gw store manager just to get him to stop. Now I just avoid him where possible.

This is out of a couple dozen people I tend to see though. Most of them aren't that bad. We all have our own issues including me but some are worse than others.

Part of my issue with tfg is a lot of people view someone or another as tfg in their own way. If we just banned tfg in all stores everybody would have their own separate qualifications. Of course some are just awful by a mile.

aaaand congrats you've just figured out the reasoning behind the hash tag FirstWorldProblems

Eh it's not too bad. Things can always be worse. As long as I can afford to eat, live and not be under constant fear of dying or having my rights taken away it could be much worse. If ever i have issues with a game store i could just not go there and if i have issues with where i work too much i dont have to work there.

"Things are never so petty unless the stakes are so low"

- Abraham Lincoln <wink>

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.

 Jjohnso11 wrote:
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.

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.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jjohnso11 wrote:

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.

I don't think this is particularly relevant. We all know that the expression is rooted in decades of use of 'first world' and 'third world' as synonyms for developed and developing (by those in the former).

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.

 Jjohnso11 wrote:

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.

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

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.

Err, yes?

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?

 Jjohnso11 wrote:

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.

The latter.

Does someone in Sweden or India call a 'trivial' computer issue a 'First World' problem or a 'Third World' problem?

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!

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.

I wasn't confused. I agree but didn't see why it was relevant.

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?

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.

 Jjohnso11 wrote:

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.

That may be its origin, but its been tied to economy and industry in common and professional usage for roughly fifty years now.

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...

 Jjohnso11 wrote:

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...

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?

A lot of people won't admit it, but there's an attraction to being a victim. Not a real victim, of course, but being part of a group which perceives itself as being the victim, the downtrodden, the target. It makes life easier and gives you an excuse for pretty much anything.

Being a victim (again, not a REAL victim, but a perceived one...because someone said a word that makes you uncomfortable, etc...that "kind" of victim) can literally become a lifestyle or a hobby. It's also big business.

There are people who are career protesters. In that they don't have an actual job, but accept money/donations/etc. to travel around the country hoisting up cardboard signs and "rallying" others for whatever cause hires them, etc. You can actually sustain yourself by making a career out of complaining, etc.

Much of it is absolutely due to being first world. It's a luxury. Couple that with the reality that the vast majority of the people doing the complaining haven't stepped a foot outside of their own country, haven't lived or been in an impoverished place, haven't seen actual brutality or crime, etc. and it just exacerbates everything. The fact that we, as first world citizens, have the time and luxury to actually try to find ways to be offended by each other is pretty obnoxious when actual bad things exist in the world.

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).

It does not seem to me that people are more superficial or self-absorbed now than they have always been.

Puts one pedantic hat....

1st world are countries aligned with the Western Powers
2nd world are countries aligned with the Soviet Bloc
3rd World is those that are unaligned

At least, that was the original meaning. it has changed a lot.

3rd World - Underdeveloped - Less Economical Developed Countries - HRRC - Emerging Markets





The term shifts around a lot depending on who writes the geography text book for the year you go through school and what is deemed "politically correct". There's loads, though 3rd world tends to stick pretty well in common parlance because everyone has a generalist idea what it means. Sure each individual country is unique and even within a country there can be huge disparities and variations.

Jjohnso11 wrote:

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.

I challenged specific parts of it and it seems most efficient to do so by quoting those parts. Here, I meant I was happy to do so again, but didn't know where we would get by me clarifying that, for instance, 'undergrad in sociology' isn't an especially strong appeal to authority, or that my friends who come from the 'third world' but would say they live in the 'first world' aren't embarrassed by where they come from or uncomfortable with being from somewhere perceived to be impoverished, they just live in Britain or the US. Many do describe themselves as being from the third world (or, more often, from a developing nation, because they reasonably object to the first/third world dichotomy).

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).

I agree with the sentiment of all of this, but I think it rather misses the actual use of the expression in most contexts. It is rarely used to describe things that are anything more than trivial by almost any scale. I've never heard someone call an exam a first world problem. I've heard lots of people calling not being able to buy the preferred brand of humous a first world problem (mostly people from the developing world, as it happens).

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.