Sunday, June 14, 2015

Only idiots and progressives -- but I repeat myself -- talk about "first-world problems"

I recently put up a post in which I intended to refer to the "problem" being addressed as a "first-world problem," as urban hipsters love to refer to such problems as where to get their organic vegan dinner or some such shit. Ultimately, I did not make that reference in that post, because I decided to break it out into a separate post. The expression is so ignorant as to defy belief, considering that the progressives consider themselves smarter, better-educated and overall more worthy to tell us how to run our lives. And yet, they use the expression as if there were, anywhere in political literature, a reference to the "First World."

Wikipedia doesn't even acknowledge that "first-world problems" is a non-sensical construct. First-world problems are supposedly the problems of modern life. The implicit denigration of other-world problems is unstated. Frankly, I can't believe that the people who supposedly care about bad shit happening to real people would be the insensitive people who talk about "first-world problems." They, of course, while believing themselves to be oh-so-sensitive, are simply revealing their arrogance and ignorance. There is no "First World," and we certainly don't live in it if it existed. I believe the "first world" would have to be Africa, where human life, according to current theory, originated. No one has located the Garden of Eden, so we're going to go with Africa, which everyone places firmly in "the Third World." So where does "First World" come from?

The whole thing is a typically liberal, overeducated-while-actually-ignorant assumption based on the use of "Third World" to describe less-developed countries. The libs don't even realize the origin of the expression, and so assume that if the Third World is less developed, the "First World" must be the most developed and so problems of modern, developed society, like whether using "you guys" is actually a problem at all, are "First World" problems. Odd that they never wonder why they never heard about the Second World. Stupid shits.

The fact is, there is no First World. There is the Old World --Europe -- the New World -- the Americas, North and South -- (both expressions that long pre-date "Third World") and then, to describe what was left came the post-World War II expression, the "Third World." Prior to World War II, the rest of the world was called "colonies." The fall of empires brought on by World War II led to the new description. They had to call it something.

The point is, liberals, while claiming to be ever-so-inclusive, tolerant, etc., without even thinking adopt terminology that places them in the "First World," even though no such construct even existed until just a few years ago. Anybody think they mean "first" to mean "equal" or "not superior?" Nope. The people who came up with "first-world problems" are the same ones who think they should be telling everyone else how to solve their problems. Fuck 'em.

No comments: