Talk:First world problems

Two wrongs?

"...this implication is used in the sense of two wrong making a right..."

How so? I think you may be confusing it with the fallacy of relative privation, linked in the see-also. Also, the numbers of the "meanings" should be reversed - (1) is simply an application of (2): dismissing someone's grievance as an overreaction.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

If you want to be pedantically exact with the language, then first of all, it is important to distinguish between a grievance as a cause and an overreaction as a reaction to said cause. Second of all, and building on that distinction, classifying someone's reaction to a grievance as an overreaction is not a complete dismissal of said grievance, as it still allows for the grievance itself to be recognized as significant, but the type of reaction (an overreaction) is characterised as excessive.

With regards to the "two wrongs don't make a right" thing, I also think that there is a bit of a misuse in this article. Nullahnung (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, the article was too negative before my edit, simply condemning the use of "First World Problem", whereas I tried to explain a scenario where invoking it can be a fun and simple way of reminding someone of how trivial certain problems actually are (e.g. the pimple). But I tried to keep everything from before my edit intact, which is why I guess the article is kind of a mess now. I don't know how to improve it without getting rid of much of the original point. Anyway, it's not really an issue that matters too much to me, so if you want you can rollback my edit. Bismarck (talk) 18:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it reads better now. But surely we can come up with cleverer examples than those. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I got angry that this wiki wasn't funny and snarky and was gonna change it until i thought: first world problem. Then left it shitty and not funny. Skinnytony1 (talk) 09:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Colonialism

The article states that first and third world are not recommended terms anymore because they refer to colonial times. Just wanted to point out that the original usage was Cold War, where first world meant anyone who was sided with NATO or the US Lerjj (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the misleading link to colonialism. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

If we had an article on neocolonialism, though.... Father Vivian O'Blivion talk 17:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

This is essentially the same ass...

..."check your privilege", huh?--95.208.248.45 (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

No, it's not. Privilege doesn't mean somebody never has problems (heck, even the richest people in the worlds can still experience serious hardship, fall ill, feel pain, become disabled, etc.), nor does lack of privilege mean that somebody is always miserable; that simplistic binary isn't promoted by any sociologist at least. Privilege is relative, and has many dimensions, so for example in the case of white privilege you'd have to compare Barack Obama with a (hypothetical, in this case) person who has all the same societal advantages and disadvantages as him but is white. Now, if a white person complained "if I have white privilege then why is my Internet so slow today? Checkmate, SJWs!" now that would be a first world problem. --91.7.13.11 (talk) 15:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Is this ok to add?

“”Luxury.

—At Last The 1948 Show The Good Old Days Monty Python's Flying Circus Four Yorkshire Men

Qwertydiy (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2024 (UTC)