Earlier quoted context omitted.
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"?
Yes.
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.