No Stupid Questions

North Korea is uncivilized. South Korea is civilized. It's not a race thing.

Less racist in the modern sense, more profoundly stupid and racist in the archaic sense.

Civilized coutry is a redundant phrase if taken literally. A country is a territory and the associated state. You can't have a state (political structure) without being 'civilized.' (participating in some kind of civic process) They are using civilized in a manner akin to how people used 'white' many years ago, referring to acceptability rather than color. e.g. The oft noted 'Irish and jews weren't white.' In that context it seems more of a sign of lack of critical thinking than colorism or essentialism.

I would say 'chauvinistic' rather than racist.

The word "civilized" essentially just means "people who act in a way I deem morally good." What 'morally good' means is 100% subjective to the individual saying it. Since personal morals are so heavily influenced by the culture and society one was raised in, the term 'civilized' is almost necessarily going to be used to justify why one's own culture is necessarily better than another.

This isn't necessarily racist, but since modern western society is so heavily based on white supremacy, it's inherently going to be racist when used by someone supporting western society. But it can also be used in other contexts in a non-racist way. But it's always going to be chauvinistic.

I don't know about strictly racist, but it's definitely got colonial overtones. Europe has used "they are uncivilized" as an excuse for the way they brutalized their colonies, erased cultures and enslaved people for centuries

Designating a country as "uncivilised" is gravely offensive, and immensely arrogant. No country would refer to itself as uncivilised. There are a few which may be lawless, or ungovernable, but uncivilised has connotations that just don't apply.

Edit: I'm kind of astonished at the comments ITT. I must have an odd idea of what "uncivilised" means. It's not simply a lower standard of living. Living in poverty does not make someone uncivilised. If a group of people have a culture and laws then they're civilised. In this context, suggesting that a group of people is uncivilised is to suggest that their culture is so pathetic as to be non-existent. A common error in the colonial era, but I'm genuinely surprised so many comments here are making the same mistake.

My wife still has a book from when she studied Archaeology at uni called "From Savagery to Civilization" by Grahame Clark.

Civilization is what we make it to be, and is usually measured by the norms and standards of the country doing the judging.

The book is from the 40s. By the standards of the day, a lot of what we do now would probably be considered uncivilised. We work from home, eat meals on our own, and rely on a court of opinion more than a court of law. Homelessness is endemic and many people are working around the clock for subsistence wages. Classical definitions of civilisations - community, care for the vulnerable, improved quality of life - are all being stripped away.

I don't think the term "uncivilised" can really be taken as a slur, at least no more than the word "bad" can be, because it's just a reflection of what the speaker values.

It's not racist. People accuse others of that term too flippantly. It is ignorant though.

Language changes a great deal over time, and slurs are no exception. What is a completely inoffensive label at some point can be a slur later on. What is a mild insult in one area can be much more severe somewhere else. Sometimes what was a slur can be reclaimed and become acceptable, even positive. But that can also depend on who is saying it and other contextual details. I don't know anything about "k!wifarms" but I wouldn't assume malicious intent without more information.

That example looks much like the No True Scotsman fallacy, since a word is redefined later to exclude what would be exceptions to their claim based on an added qualification. Person A also made Person B get the evidence to refute their claim rather than fulfilling the burden of proof themselves. I know it's not a formal debate or anything, but even so, bad faith arguments are just rude. Just own the mistake and say "you're right, I was only thinking of first world countries/liberal democracies/developed nations/whatever".

"Developed" Countries and "Developing" Countries are the terms I would use in this context.

AFIAK, there is no negative connotation with the term "Developing Country", to me it just means they haven't been given the opportunity to develop, possibly due to external factors like colonialism.

But as for Conversion therapy, even "Banned in most Developed Countries" would be inaccurate since South Korea and Japan hasn't banned it, so perhaps "Western Democracies" would fit your conversation about the ban on Conversion therapy.

Context matters. Always. One person can use a word and it will be not racist, another can use the same term and it will be racist. You should ask the person what they define as "civilized". Their reasoning is your answer.

These days I see it used in a derogatory way to describe countries and their culture more than the genetics of the people living in them.

E.g. even though I am genetically identical to white Texans, I'd happily call Texas uncivilized because it lets assholes with guns override government.

Debatable what "civilized" is, but I imagine most westerns consider themselves "civilized" and developing countries to be "uncivilized". It has colonialist vibes and is not necessarily racist, but can be quite ignorant and prejudiced.

Christians invaded many countries and pretend to make them "civilized" but instead enslaved their people and treated them like animals. Pretty far from civil if you ask me. The US considers itself civilized yet it has a death penalty, just like Myanmar, Saudi Arabia and a bunch of other countries. Greece introduced a 6-day work-week which hasn't been a thing in Europe since the industrial revolution, a time we would now consider quite uncivilized. Israel is currently committing genocide under the guise of self-protection and will not listen to reason, yet they probably consider themselves quite civilized.

It seems to me like "civilized" is a form elitism that can be quite close to racism, depending on who you talk to.

No

It comes off as very ignorant.

People typically used developed and developing as a result.

Depends on context. In the context of an informal conversation about a specific kind of law it's fine IMO. It's also fine if it's obviously not that serious, like e.g. different styles of toilets that are both found in the 'developed world'. When you're talking about a topic where generally richer countries do it one way and poorer countries do it another way, that's where calling the poorer countries 'uncivilized' starts sounding racist (or maybe just classist, considering countries like Belarus which are poor, authoritarian and underdeveloped but not inhabited by any brown people).

No

I refer to the country I live in as uncivilized

a handful of countries

Person A: "I meant in most civilized countries"

That person used the term without knowing ANY meaning of it, just as an excuse for knowing only a tiny fraction of the world but still making bold generalizations regarding the whole world.

The difference between "civilized" and "uncivilized" countries is that "civilized" countries call their terrorists "counter-terrorists" and "civilized" countries are allowed to bomb "uncivilized" countries in the name of civility.

Not racist. Class-ist/ clan-ist, if it's a thing, probably. What is considered covilised in one societal context may not be in another.

No by definition: races are not defined or related to countries' borders. It might be chauvinistic, but not racist.

And in many situations it is possible to define the objective criterium of being "civilized".

It can be argued that it's racist because "civilized" means "western" or "western-influenced", i.e. contrasts countries in Europe + North America + Australia + maybe some of Eastern Asia with countries in Africa or Southern Asia.

You are very close to figuring out some of the problems with "social justice" ideology.

Standing up for all "oppressed groups" is contradictory. For example, in western countries, LGBT people are an oppressed group, and so are Muslims, yet when the latter are in power, they treat the former very badly, so which side do you stand up for? Or try these: https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/erbe/2008/11/07/blacks-are-more-socially-conservative-than-barack-obama https://news.gallup.com/poll/112807/blacks-conservative-republicans-some-moral-issues.aspx

It also doesn't help in conflicts such as Israel/Palestine (are Palestinians oppressed by Israel, so we stand up for them? are Israelis oppressed by the Muslim world, so we stand up for Israel?) or trans activists vs. trans-exclusionary feminists (are trans people an oppressed group whose rights we support? are women an oppressed group whose identity is being appropriated by trans women?). You can see it's possible to argue nearly everything from the premise that we stand up for "oppressed groups".

So I suggest people stop thinking in these terms at all and instead pick some other way of thinking, such as supporting a society in which anyone is allowed to live their life as long as they aren't harming anyone else. Not saying this helps in the specific (somewhat silly) argument you are quoting.

For me, "civilized countries" explicitely excludes the US. Does this make me a racist, or just a fact checker?

Civilized in this context would mean "at an advanced state of social and cultural development" I guess? Looking at this definition, I can allready tell you I live in th most civilized part of the world, since this would be higly subjective.

Personally, I am not sure whether I should judge these behaviors as racist or not.

Words are words.

But there're differences between the social structures, economic level and common cultures of some countries when compared to others.

And some of these aspects in some of these countries are worse than in others and they are expected to become better in the future, which implies there is a progression going on and different countries are in different points in this progression path.

For instance, a country that would not accept transexuality is objectively lower in this progression scale, and we hope in the future it will progress until it becomes a country that fully accepts transexuality.

And for people that attend to emotion and not reason I'm LGBT in more than one way, which means that my own existence is punished by death in some places and accepted as normal in others, which obviously stablish a scale of values from my perspective. I cannot consider equivalent a place whose legislation and culture would lead to my death to a place which would let me live.