This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Hundreds of thousands of orderly, productive citizens? Like, you bring up the costs and benefits of migration, and this has always been the slam dunk for immigration. The cost of Irish immigration was not primarily in material damage caused by Irish immigrants (which was minimal, and more than offset by the benefits of millions of additional people, not to mention the fact that they helped save the Union), but in the backlash against them by nativists (which gets to the broader problem of nativists hating immigrants more than they love their countries).
Also, I just double checked the details of the case, and Nowak wasn't stabbed with a kirpan but another knife. As far as I can tell it wouldn't be covered under religious allowances (which is presumably why efforts were made to hide it), so that detail is most likely irrelevant.
And I think this is taking a singular event and treating it as a trend. The friends and family members of criminals providing support to the guilty part, while unfortunate, is not particularly unusual. We'd need to have some reason to think British Sikhs are unusually bad about this compared to other Britons. If you have affirmative evidence of such a trend, I would be interested in seeing it. As far as I can tell, @MadMonzer 's claim that British Sikhs are, on the whole, more law abiding than the general British population seems to be correct.
It was covered, the refutation is a lie put around by Redditors. If you read the judge's closing statements, he makes it clear that both knives are kirpans and that Digwa was permitted it because of the religious exemption. Usually Sikhs wear one small one, but he was part of a group that wears an additional massive sharp one and this is permitted.
Digwa specifically got a reduction in his sentence because, as a Sikh, it was legal for him to have the murder weapon. For a normal UK citizen that would be considered a serious aggravating factor and result in an extended sentence.
I didn't get it from reddit, I got it from public reporting on the case. If that's actually the case, my mistake, but I'll need to take some time later to check the judge's statements directly to verify.
More options
Context Copy link
The sentencing remarks said (emphasis mine):
In other words, the Court didn't rule on the legal question of whether the big knife was legal to carry*, it ruled on the factual question of what Digwa's motivations were in carrying it. If Digwa's motivation for carrying the knife in the first place was to use it as a weapon, the starting point is a life sentence with a 25 year minimum. If his motivation for carrying the knife was something else, then the starting point is a life sentence with a 15 year minimum. The judge ruled that Digwa's motivation was religious. The same analysis would apply if a pastry chef murdered someone with a breadknife - the non-murderous reason for having the knife reduces the presumed level of premeditation.
* Digwa was also convicted of illegally carrying a knife, but on the technicality that whether or not the knife was legal originally, it became illegal when used for an illegal purpose.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link