An actual argument I recently saw:

Person B: “Any site which contains slurs against trans people in its sign up process is unreliable” (was referring to k!wifarms)

Person A: “Slurs aren’t considered bad in most countries”

Person B: “That doesn’t justify their usage. For example, conversion therapy isn’t considered bad or banned in most countries, that doesn’t mean conversion therapy is justified or good.”

Person A: “What are you talking about? Conversion therapy is banned in most countries”

Person B: “Shows a diagram showing that conversion therapy is only banned in a handful of countries”

Person A: “I mean in most civilized countries”

I’ve seen lots of other people refer to countries as civilized or uncivilized in similar contexts. Is this generally considered to be racist?

  • thebestaquaman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    12 hours ago

    Exactly! I’m sick of people being labelled as racist because they’ve said some keyword that someone has decided makes them racist, even when their intents and opinions are clearly not racist.

    Saying it’s “uncivilised” to publicly beat someone to death because they <insert whatever>, cannot be racist, because you’re not concerned with “race” in any way. Going further and saying that a country that allows such practices is uncivilised is, again, inherently not racist, because the reason for calling them uncivilised has nothing to do with the “race” of the people involved.