You're viewing a single thread.
Huh, I've only encountered the "rich and privileged" definition in the wild, regardless of skin color.
Yes, there are rich and privileged people with any given skin color. Nonetheless are non-white rich and privileged people by far outnumbered by white rich and privileged and non-white rich and privileged are very often less privileged than their white peers.
But that's just the situation as it is now, it doesn't make the definition racist.
What I mean to say is that it includes every citizen of a particular 1st world country. The US, for example, has a very wide racial diversity, and every one of them is part of my encountered definition.
Then your definition is dumb. There are a lot of poor people in the US. Just because there are people worse off doesn't mean your own poors aren't poor and underprivileged and suffering from it.
Edit: Your description also even furthers my point, because the globally poorest people are non-whites and they are also outnumbering rich and privileged by a large margin.
Are you saying a POC can't have 1st world problems?
Yes, that is the exact meaning if my words /s
I think you misinterpreted my comments. That's okay my dude. I was saying POC can also have 1st world problems and aren't excluded because of their race.
Nonetheless are non-white rich and privileged people by far outnumbered by white rich and privileged and non-white rich and privileged are very often less privileged than their white peers.
Super american-centric take, go off wrong-queen
Bullshit. Western-centric, maybe. But even globally seen are white people generally better off than non-white people. That doesn't mean that in countries that are not USA, Canada or european countries non-white people cannot be privileged over white people, but globally and statistically, white people have more freedom are wealthier and have better access to any kind of infrastructure.