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.
You make it, and now it’s a somewhat safe place for people to form discussions that validate pedophilia. Several discussions now are adjacent to that topic, via adoption discussion, sneakernet dissemination, countries with lax laws, discussions around age of consent, definitions of nudity, what is considered public spaces for photography…
At some point it is no longer pure philosophical discussions in neutral faith, but a breeding ground for pure shit. How do you determine if that point is reached? How do you decide where the line goes? How do you adjust the rules to adjust for this?
The above is not hypothetical. It specifically has ruined a few online spaces. Other topics like the Trump cult has a different pattern.
Each type of topic needs a different style, tolerance and shape of moderation for this, so it’s more effective to look for this per topic instead of a general solution.
E.g. transgender discussion has different problems than russian aggression discussion, different problem actors using different strategies, and are solved by very different types of moderation.
Discussing which language should take precedence in schools, in countries with multiple official languages, needs a wildly different set of rules, moderation, tolerances and even moderator knowledge.
This sentence surprised me a bit. When and how often do you run that risk?