"First World Problems"

This is my maybe favorite phrase of all time, as it so clearly sums up my view on about 90% of the "issues" out there in our country. I have contended for decades they only exist b/c of people having far too much free time and far too few real problems facing their lives, so they invent problems and make mountains out of things that aren't even molehills. I've told people for a long time that if they really think America and the free market and capitalism is so bad they need to tour the rest of the world and see how real government run nations live and what the poverty is like there. They have no basis for measuring what we consider poverty in this country or how it is so much better than it was, which is key to understanding how to improve it further.

Anyway, this phrase says all of that so well, defining things that only exist in places that are so well off they see these things as problems.

A great example I just saw, the student government at Johns Hopkins has voted against allowing a Chik'fil'a on campus. this is of course due to the CEO making his personal comment on same sex marriage quite a while ago.

First, that in and of itself is a FWP. It's not store policy in any way, has no bearing on anyone, has not in any way harmed anyone in any direct way or limited their life choices, it was just a comment by one guy. The whole idea that it's worth worrying about is based on having nothing else of importance to worry about . If this is the worst slight the LGBT community faces they're sitting pretty.

But it gets better. Most important, there were not and are not any plans to OPEN a Chik fil a on the campus. It's not even come up. They just took this vote in response to those comments a year or more ago but the chain isn't even trying to be there. They might as well have voted against Kim Jong Il opening a movie theater on campus.

Last, they called those comments, which again in no way created any ACTION of any kind, a "microaggression" against the LGBT community. What the heck is a "micro" aggression, and if it is that micro, why have a vote? We are now in a world so utopian, so devoid of real threats and issues and suffering that we need to address aggressions that can only be seen by using a microscope?

It's all an aside, but every day I see story after story that is about what is essentially a non-issue, from environmental concerns like the EPA wanting to regulate swimming pools and wood burning stoves to these kinds of symbolic ego trips. None are serious enough to even warrant conversation, much less legislation and regulation.

First World Problems. so well said. Drop these spoiled kids from John's Hopkins into a real world situation and lets see how worried they get about that stuff when they have to worry about real issues and problems.

Amen.

But these are the future leader of the world!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc

But these are the future leader of the world!

---

So were all of the draft dodging, left wing, Communist sympathizers that emerged as political players back in the '60's...........Bill & Hillary, Obama, Kerry, Holder, Jarrett.......see where all of that "talent" has taken us?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

Last, they called those comments, which again in no way created any ACTION of any kind, a "microaggression" against the LGBT community. What the heck is a "micro" aggression, and if it is that micro, why have a vote? We are now in a world so utopian, so devoid of real threats and issues and suffering that we need to address aggressions that can only be seen by using a microscope?

---

Microaggressions are interactions, which wile non-confrontational in nature, serve to demean, denigrate or ostracize an individual. They are called microaggressions because they are not blatantly confrontational, which are called macroaggressions. Usually, the person making these comments doesn't realize what they are doing. They can be as blatant as sexually objectifying a random woman on the street by cat-calls and lewd comments, to phrases like "your people" which implies that the person is not part of the rest of the group. Other common ones are things like in business where they have shown in meetings that a women's input is valued less than a mans, the common everyday usage of words like calling someone a fag, queer, saying "quit being gay" all in a negative context, etc.


To quote wikipedia:

Quote:

---

Because perpetrators are generally well-meaning and microaggressions are subtle, their recipients often experience attributional ambiguity, which may lead them to dismiss the experience and blame themselves as overly sensitive. If challenged by the minority person or an observer, perpetrators will often defend their microaggression as a misunderstanding, a joke, or something small that shouldn't be blown out of proportion.

---

As my colleague said: "It's like getting poked with a safety pin. If one person does it to you, then it sucks but you move on; but if everywhere you go people are poking you with a safety pin you might start feeling a little insane and stabby yourself." It's not a perfect analogy but it gives a rough idea of the concept behind microagressions.


Microaggression theory aside, this is plain rediculous. I can understand protesting if Chick-Fil-A was trying to open on campus. Do I agree with it? No, but I can understand it. The fact that they are protesting this with ZERO interaction from Chik-Fil-A is a pretentious, self-agrandizing, does-nothing to actually help but pat yourself on the back type of self serving rubbish. It's like the people that go on tours to "help alleviate poverty" and do token stuff that only marginally helps or in fact makes things worse. These people do it not because they want to help but because it makes them feel good. It's selfish to the core, while trying to maintain a dressing of charity.

your description reminds me of the Comic Relief thing. that cracked me up every year and I like a LOT of the people performing in it, but I could never get past them being so proud of raising $3-4 million for 'the homeless' (that's a broad group with a lot of very different issues you have to pick through) while the net worth of those on the stage was often hundreds of millions and that of the people in attendance plus them very likely in the billions. A few of them got out and did actual things to help, but most just went to watch a comedy show or perform on TV and somehow that was their big contribution to the cause, and we're supposed to feel like they really cared passionately when 90% of the money was raised from Joe and Jane America with small donations.

All those things are like that, and they all make me laugh. if your'e going to a $10,000 a plate fundraiser for poverty, you need to take a step back for a minute and ask some serious questions. If you're going to a $10K a plate dinner for a CANDIDATE who talks about poverty as their big cause, you need to take a week to ask those questions. :)

Re microaggressions, the part about how the person should probably blow it off as being overly sensitive is on average closer to the right decision than anything else. The fundamental question of women not being valued in meetings is IMO far from a "micro" aggression, but the idea that every one of these needs to be addressed in some way is what worries me. It sounds a LOT like 1984 levels of speech control, the very clear mission of the left that we cannot simply have a difference of opinion and state it without it being portrayed as homophobic or prejudiced, etc.

It's not an aggression of any kind for someone to simply disagree with your view. Some people sincerely have different beliefs and it's not them being aggressive, it's them exercising their right to disagree. Now, one can either agree with that or not, can patron their business or not, etc. but they have as much right to that view and to expressing it as anyone else.

"Tolerance" doesn't require us to agree with the choices of another person, or support them or applaud them or approve of them, simply to not take action to prevent or interfere with them. We tolerate each other, we don't have to agree all the time. I tolerate lots of things that I don't like and lots of choices I wouldn't make, and I'm sure others do the same with me. Those variations in our behaviors and beliefs and expressions thereof are not "microaggressions", they are simply people exercising their right to have their own opinion, and others can take it or leave it as they choose.

"Microaggression" is the definition of the doublespeak Orwellian approach of the Left to censure thought by censoring words IMO. Any act against another in a discriminatory fashion can surely be covered well enough without us having to have a way to define any contrary comment or view as aggressive and negative.

As Chris Titus said, it's time for a lot of people to climb down off their crosses, use the wood to build a bridge and GET OVER IT. Like I said, these are the first world problems of people who have never suffered real discrimination, real abuse, real hardship. When you're REALLY being discriminated against you won't need to call it "micro" anything, and if it doesn't rise to that just move on.

I'm not supporting such things, there are some tactless people out there who need to be slapped, but either slap them or go on b/c in the scheme of things it really is the kind of "problem" that only exists in a world like ours where we've apparently eliminated all the serious problems our forefathers faced.

But as you said, my biggest guffaw wasn't the microaggression thing but was the fact that they weren't even trying to build a restaurant on the campus. I think we can all agree that's pretty entertaining and as you said very self-absorbed.