Anonymous #2 1d

yeah, isn’t it odd how significantly the meaning shifted over time? imo what makes it kinda offensive is precisely the fact that, when used as a system of economic classification, it doesn’t really mean anything—i.e. the label a country gets assigned is generally based on stereotypes as opposed to anything quantifiable. so there’s some racialized baggage involved in that categorization

1

Anonymous OP 1d

Yeah I can see that. Honestly even though terms like developed or developing countries are more useful, it never feels 100% right for such a sweeping generalizing label like that, since economic development is so complex and is so different across different countries and cultures.

5

Anonymous #2 1d

and since that categorical framing is outdated, I think that to describe a trivial irritation as a “first world problem” is at best a faux pas. a lot of the time when people use that phrase, it seems to imply that everyone living in so-called “third world countries” must be so busy dealing with barbarism and abject poverty that they don’t also experience more trivial everyday inconveniences as Problems

1

Anonymous #2 1d

agreed btw, I try to avoid even the “developed / developing” dichotomy when at all possible tbh. like, it feels a little “colonizer logic”-y, you know what I mean? though I’m less confident in my critique of that language than I am of the “third world” label so I wouldn’t feel the need to take someone to task over their usage of it

1