4 ms·

> is not an indictment of bad tech, but of a fucked up honor-based patriarchal culture. Bad tech played a crucial role in the escalation, though. What is justi

by jlg23 9y ago

> is not an indictment of bad tech, but of a fucked up honor-based patriarchal culture. Bad tech played a crucial role in the escalation, though. What is justified in one society or even demanded is not necessarily justified in another. And a text message that you consider just offensive might be a strong insult in another culture with implications you cannot even grasp. Calling people for their culture "scum" is the least effective way of "positively" influencing them (on the premise that Western culture is "positive").

Kenji 9y ago
> Calling people for their culture "scum" is the least effective way of "positively" influencing them If their culture is objectively so primitive and backwards that it causes behaviour you'd expect of savages a couple thousand years ago, I think that word is entirely appropriate.
- jballanc 9y ago
  I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that, because a misunderstanding over text led to one person murdering another, that the culture in which these events occurred was primitive, backwards, and deserving of the epithet "scum"?
  - lawly 9y ago
    Yes.
    - jballanc 9y ago
      I mean, I'm no fan of the British, but I wouldn't call them "scum". Oh, or did you mean a different situation where a misunderstanding via text led to a murder? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1356632/Man-killed-friend-row-mis-spelt-text-message.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1356632/Man-killed-f...
      - lawly 9y ago
        Oh, yes, let's pretend it's the same thing when a nutjob commits manslaughter and a family comes together over knives to commit premeditated murder of a man coming to apologize to defend the honor of the family's daughter.
    - jancsika 9y ago
      This is an instructive escalation. User ewjordan's original comment is clearly calling out a bad institution-- an "honor-based patriarchal culture"-- for encouraging a specific bad actor (or at least a specific class of bad actors) to murder other human beings. I say bad actor because ewjordan saw fit to emphasize-- using the heightened language "damn well"-- that everyone knows about the potential for ambiguity in the choice of text. People who jump on an ambiguity in a patriarchal society for a chance to do murder are clearly bad actors. Hence, the word scum probably seems like a fitting epithet for such a bad actor. The problem is that heightened language always ends up obscuring one's point. For example, is user dvfjsdhgfv agreeing with ewjordan or extending the critique more broadly to include people who aren't obviously bad actors? It isn't clear to me. User Kenji's logic is less ambiguous, however. Since it is "their culture" which "causes causes behaviour you'd expect of savages a couple thousand years ago", the use of the word "scum" is deemed appropriate. Yet, using "scum" to describe a "culture" is awkward, and seems to suggest that it is the inhabitants of that culture who are in fact being called "scum" here. Does that include both bad faith and good faith actors? User jballanc asks for clarification on this, and by now user lawly is apparently confident enough to give a one-word answer: "Yes." Finally, just to confirm that the understanding is that we're indeed applying the descriptor "scum" to large swaths of human beings, user jballanc gives the counter-argument based on that logic: > I mean, I'm no fan of the British, but I wouldn't call them "scum". This is why I try to avoid using heightened language especially when describing people who commit horrific acts.
      - ewjordan 9y ago
        FWIW I'm totally with you here: this particular family was who I was aiming the "scum" comment at, not the entire culture. I'm never going to do a song and dance in favor of that culture, though, because it is pretty messed up if it encourages that kind of behavior. That doesn't mean that everyone in the fold is a bad actor, so I'd hesitate to paint so many people with the same brush. Some or most are probably decent folk that would never support shit like this. I do stand behind my word choice as written and clarified here, though.
dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
How on earth should people who kill over words, no matter how offensive, be called? Really, in these times of twisting the meaning of words, we should really call spade a spade and not to hide behinds untrue cliches such as "all cultures are equal and should be respected equally". Not they're not and shouldn't be. If your "culture" demands that you pour acid over the face of your ex-girlfriend, it doesn't deserve to be called "culture", and you deserve to be called who you are.
- jlg23 9y ago
  I have no idea who you are responding too. Nobody in this thread claimed "all cultures are equal and should be respected equally". I was saying that cultures are vastly different and that showing complete disrespect for something you don't even understand will not help anybody at all. Acid-attacks, btw, are a mostly Indian specialty - try this in a honor based society and you have her family get at you sooner than you can write another uninformed "response" to something nobody ever said.

by jlg23 9y ago

Kenji 9y ago

> Calling people for their culture "scum" is the least effective way of "positively" influencing them If their culture is objectively so primitive and backwards that it causes behaviour you'd expect of savages a couple thousand years ago, I think that word is entirely appropriate.

jballanc 9y ago
I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that, because a misunderstanding over text led to one person murdering another, that the culture in which these events occurred was primitive, backwards, and deserving of the epithet "scum"?
- lawly 9y ago
  Yes.
  - jballanc 9y ago
    I mean, I'm no fan of the British, but I wouldn't call them "scum". Oh, or did you mean a different situation where a misunderstanding via text led to a murder? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1356632/Man-killed-friend-row-mis-spelt-text-message.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1356632/Man-killed-f...
    - lawly 9y ago
      Oh, yes, let's pretend it's the same thing when a nutjob commits manslaughter and a family comes together over knives to commit premeditated murder of a man coming to apologize to defend the honor of the family's daughter.
  - jancsika 9y ago
    This is an instructive escalation. User ewjordan's original comment is clearly calling out a bad institution-- an "honor-based patriarchal culture"-- for encouraging a specific bad actor (or at least a specific class of bad actors) to murder other human beings. I say bad actor because ewjordan saw fit to emphasize-- using the heightened language "damn well"-- that everyone knows about the potential for ambiguity in the choice of text. People who jump on an ambiguity in a patriarchal society for a chance to do murder are clearly bad actors. Hence, the word scum probably seems like a fitting epithet for such a bad actor. The problem is that heightened language always ends up obscuring one's point. For example, is user dvfjsdhgfv agreeing with ewjordan or extending the critique more broadly to include people who aren't obviously bad actors? It isn't clear to me. User Kenji's logic is less ambiguous, however. Since it is "their culture" which "causes causes behaviour you'd expect of savages a couple thousand years ago", the use of the word "scum" is deemed appropriate. Yet, using "scum" to describe a "culture" is awkward, and seems to suggest that it is the inhabitants of that culture who are in fact being called "scum" here. Does that include both bad faith and good faith actors? User jballanc asks for clarification on this, and by now user lawly is apparently confident enough to give a one-word answer: "Yes." Finally, just to confirm that the understanding is that we're indeed applying the descriptor "scum" to large swaths of human beings, user jballanc gives the counter-argument based on that logic: > I mean, I'm no fan of the British, but I wouldn't call them "scum". This is why I try to avoid using heightened language especially when describing people who commit horrific acts.
    - ewjordan 9y ago
      FWIW I'm totally with you here: this particular family was who I was aiming the "scum" comment at, not the entire culture. I'm never going to do a song and dance in favor of that culture, though, because it is pretty messed up if it encourages that kind of behavior. That doesn't mean that everyone in the fold is a bad actor, so I'd hesitate to paint so many people with the same brush. Some or most are probably decent folk that would never support shit like this. I do stand behind my word choice as written and clarified here, though.

dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago

How on earth should people who kill over words, no matter how offensive, be called? Really, in these times of twisting the meaning of words, we should really call spade a spade and not to hide behinds untrue cliches such as "all cultures are equal and should be respected equally". Not they're not and shouldn't be. If your "culture" demands that you pour acid over the face of your ex-girlfriend, it doesn't deserve to be called "culture", and you deserve to be called who you are.

jlg23 9y ago
I have no idea who you are responding too. Nobody in this thread claimed "all cultures are equal and should be respected equally". I was saying that cultures are vastly different and that showing complete disrespect for something you don't even understand will not help anybody at all. Acid-attacks, btw, are a mostly Indian specialty - try this in a honor based society and you have her family get at you sooner than you can write another uninformed "response" to something nobody ever said.