The Student Room Group

The Warwick drama continues

Scroll to see replies

They're just some videogaming edgelords and going off the vastly exaggerated descriptions, there is little credible threat there. Actual rapists, don't go and shout about it.

The girl needs to toughen up a little, because at this stage they're just verbal insults.
Original post by SHallowvale
In what context is it acceptable/understandable to say that you're going to rape someone?

Granted I myself don't find jokes about rape funny. From the sound of the story it wasn't just the odd joke either. I can understand the occassional twisted/sick joke but if it's something a lot more common then there could be some underlying problems. Might not be though.

In the context that it is a joke, I said that I was going to kill someone a few days ago because he forgot to do something and no one blinked an eye even though murder is worse than rape
Original post by AperfectBalance
In the context that it is a joke, I said that I was going to kill someone a few days ago because he forgot to do something and no one blinked an eye even though murder is worse than rape

Fair enough, though "I'm going to kill someone" is a much more common phrase than saying you'd rape them, be it as a joke or a lesser joke (can't put it into words).
Original post by SHallowvale
Fair enough, though "I'm going to kill someone" is a much more common phrase than saying you'd rape them, be it as a joke or a lesser joke (can't put it into words).

But the point is, no matter how common or trite the jocular comment is, there is no intent behind it. To the speaker and to the intended of the jocular comment, there is knowledge that it is not serious and does not represent the speaker's genuine thoughts and in no way will be acted upon.

Suppose I say to my pals not that "I will kill someone" but "I will stab them in the neck and then bite off theirs ears", am I being more serious just because I expressed the same point in a more original way? I think as a matter of common sense being creative in your jokes is more likely to get a laugh. There is a reason there are numerous surrealist and absurdist comedians make a good living and have a swell fan base.
Original post by Notoriety
But the point is, no matter how common or trite the jocular comment is, there is no intent behind it. To the speaker and to the intended of the jocular comment, there is knowledge that it is not serious and does not represent the speaker's genuine thoughts and in no way will be acted upon.

Suppose I say to my pals not that "I will kill someone" but "I will stab them in the neck and then bite off theirs ears", am I being more serious just because I expressed the same point in a more original way? I think as a matter of common sense being creative in your jokes is more likely to get a laugh. There is a reason there are numerous surrealist and absurdist comedians make a good living and have a swell fan base.

I understand this, what I'm saying is that we don't necessarily know whether there was no intent behind the things they said. The fact we're talking about this now shows that someone somewhere received those comments and did think that there was a serious intent behind them.
Original post by SHallowvale
I understand this, what I'm saying is that we don't necessarily know whether there was no intent behind the things they said. The fact we're talking about this now shows that someone somewhere received those comments and did think that there was a serious intent behind them.

Yeah, we live in a world where someone called "captain fartsalot" in a private chat was perceived as being serious by a bunch of ****ing morons.
I don't think there's any issue about what the lads did.

Sure the comments aren't great and may be hurtful to outsiders but it's a private conversation. There's a thing called free speach.

It may not be your style of humour but it's just that. One of our group chats has many holocaust, jewish and racial jokes, the main humour not being directly aimed at the victims per sea, more highlighting how ridiculous people who hold such views truely are.... that's where the humour comes from!

However if someone just dropped the content of such chats on the lap of some university HR freeloader.... of course it would make me look like a raging, EDL friendly, anti-semtic, racist! Personally I'm curious what university rules they actually broke? Anybody know?
Original post by Notoriety
Yeah, we live in a world where someone called "captain fartsalot" in a private chat was perceived as being serious by a bunch of ****ing morons.

Being given a stupid name on a messanger doesn't stop you from being taken seriously.
Original post by DanB1991
Personally I'm curious what university rules they actually broke? Anybody know?

https://warwick.ac.uk/services/gov/calendar/section2/regulations/disciplinary/

Sec 1.4 Bullet points 11, 14,15, 17

I'm guessing the signed up to a code of conduct when joining the university.
Original post by Moments
https://warwick.ac.uk/services/gov/calendar/section2/regulations/disciplinary/

Sec 1.4 Bullet points 11, 14,15, 17

I'm guessing the signed up to a code of conduct when joining the university.

Thanks.

I think only bullet point 17 is the only one that holds any real ground here.

Point 11: If it's obvious the offended parties were never meant to see the chat, "threatening, offensive or indecent behaviour;" wouldn't stick under cross examination in a civil court.

Point 14: With "bullying, harassment, unlawful discrimination, racism, hate crime or other breaches of the Dignity at Warwick Policy;" it has to be directed at an individual with malace or bad intent. Again the intent for the offendeded parties to see the chat has to be considered, otherwise and bad word spoken in private about anyone can be seen as bullying or harassment. It's not unlawful discrimination, it's not a hate crime as it's not directed to offend an individual and if the context is humour it's not racism (depending on the angle of the humour).

Point 15: There's no sexual misconduct here at all, the sexual remarks section would only apply if given directly to the individuals concerned.

It would be interesting to see how this would be resolved if one of the male students took this to court. I know universities don't have to accept anyone, however employers already can't discipline people for personal messages, made in person time on a personal device unless.... they represent the company on a fairly open and large scale (aka a CEO) or they're still representing the company (aka in uniform).

Heaven forbid they ever had a student as outed in the BDSM community..... if they stick to their points on this case, technically they would have to discipline those individuals too! The worlds just gone mad!
Original post by DanB1991
Sure the comments aren't great and may be hurtful to outsiders but it's a private conversation. There's a thing called free speach...

Except....once a conversation is in the public domain it's in the public domain and as university students are accountable to the institution they are a member of for what they say in the public domain - which might bring that institution into disrepute - the 'free speech' argument in this context is thus flawed. Personally I think the female students who were named as targets should explore possible civil action agains both the individuals who 'joked' about raping them and the institution.
Original post by SHallowvale
Being given a stupid name on a messanger doesn't stop you from being taken seriously.

"Doesn't stop you." Indeed, it is still possible that someone from a silly place could be saying serious things. The point I am making is that we should assume that people from a silly place are saying silly things. This based on parsimony and basic common sense.

You're looking at it incorrectly. E.g. "it's something a lot more common then there could be some underlying problems." You're coming at it from the POV that these people should lose their place at uni, and progression into their careers, because of these comments as they could have been serious. Unless it can be proved that it is impossible that they were not joking. In your words, "we don't necessarily know whether there was no intent behind the things they said."

Therefore, as long as it's possible that someone with a silly name could be serious and as long as it's possible that the frequency might mean they were serious ... Well, by God, they're being serious and a threat to women. Really, this method of reasoning smells rather badly of confirmation bias and is hugely unfair to the "lads" involved.

Your reasoning in the mini-arguments about frequency and murder jokes being common, as suggesting intent, are really quite weak. Almost as if you're straining to the point. I demonstrate that creativity doesn't indicate intent, but is a normal part of joke-crafting, and you move entirely on a different point. Argumentum ad populum; the people baying for blood and professing to be gravely offended are likely on to something.

Almost as if your support for these lads being naughty is not based on premises you went through in your head before you started commenting, but a hunch you have deep down and the poorly formed premises follow.

PS: you brought out my first ranty post of 2019. Congrats.
(edited 5 years ago)
Original post by Axiomasher
Except....once a conversation is in the public domain it's in the public domain and as university students are accountable to the institution they are a member of for what they say in the public domain - which might bring that institution into disrepute - the 'free speech' argument in this context is thus flawed. Personally I think the female students who were named as targets should explore possible civil action agains both the individuals who 'joked' about raping them and the institution.

That would only be the case if the individuals agreed to make it public, which I highly doubt they did.

Otherwise the one in the wrong would be the individual who brought it into the public domain. If the members had no reasonable belief that it would enter the public domain and did not consent it to being in the public domain there's no case.

If I recorded a video of me saying something racist and passed it into the public domain I would get into trouble. If I believe I'm all alone, say something racist and someone records it and spreads it into the public domain, I wouldn't.

By your logic we would be in a situation where we would be punishing victims (for example of underage porn) if it gets into the public domain regardless of their level of consent.
Original post by DanB1991
Thanks.

Snip

I agree with you on 11 and 15 actually on reflection. Regarding 14 there have been several girls mentioned by name (redacted in the screenshots) but yes, heavily mitigated by the fact it was a private chat.

The world has indeed gone mad, I just don't see how any of these clowns pose a credible threat.

1 year suspension and the fact it'll go on their transcripts and probably references to employers is punishment enough.
Original post by Notoriety
"Doesn't stop you." Indeed, it is still possible that someone from a silly place could be saying serious things. The point I am making is that we should assume that people from a silly place are saying silly things. This based on parsimony and basic common sense.

You're looking at it incorrectly. E.g. "it's something a lot more common then there could be some underlying problems." You're coming at it from the POV that these people should lose their place at uni, and progression into their careers, because of these comments as they could have been serious. Unless it can be proved that it is impossible that they were not joking. In your words, "we don't necessarily know whether there was no intent behind the things they said."

Therefore, as long as it's possible that someone with a silly name could be serious and as long as it's possible that the frequency might mean they were serious ... Well, by God, they're being serious and a threat to women. Really, this method of reasoning smells rather badly of confirmation bias and is hugely unfair to the "lads" involved.

Your reasoning about frequency and murder jokes being common, as suggesting intent: really quite weak.

I think it's worth mentioning that I don't have any opinion on whether they should have been kicked off their course or not.
Original post by SHallowvale
I think it's worth mentioning that I don't have any opinion on whether they should have been kicked off their course or not.

No, of course. Why would it be presumed that you think they should be kicked off their course.

You're only submitting that they were seriously talking about raping their flatmates.
Original post by DanB1991
That would only be the case if the individuals agreed to make it public, which I highly doubt they did.

Otherwise the one in the wrong would be the individual who brought it into the public domain. If the members had no reasonable belief that it would enter the public domain and did not consent it to being in the public domain there's no case.

If I recorded a video of me saying something racist and passed it into the public domain I would get into trouble. If I believe I'm all alone, say something racist and someone records it and spreads it into the public domain, I wouldn't.

By your logic we would be in a situation where we would be punishing victims (for example of underage porn) if it gets into the public domain regardless of their level of consent.

Your argument about filming someone being raped doesn’t make any sense. Aside from that they did something wrong. Whether by law they should be punished is a seperate argument. They did something wrong. They described how they would rape their close female friends and said sexist, racist and nasty things. That is wrong, and if you deny that there is something wrong with you. In the very least you should be able to understand that these girls feel violated and betrayed. It’s also important to understand that jokes about death aren’t really comparable to this. It’s a lot more likely that these boys would actually perform the acts they are talking about particularly when none of their other friends show any negative feelings towards rape. It creates a situation where rape can be seen as okay to these people
Original post by Notoriety
No, of course. Why would it be presumed that you think they should be kicked off their course.

You're only submitting that they were seriously talking about raping their flatmates.

Unless I'm mistaken, I don't believe I said that they were being serious? I certainly wouldn't know if they were.
Original post by potatohouse
Your argument about filming someone being raped doesn’t make any sense. Aside from that they did something wrong. Whether by law they should be punished is a seperate argument. They did something wrong. They described how they would rape their close female friends and said sexist, racist and nasty things. That is wrong, and if you deny that there is something wrong with you. In the very least you should be able to understand that these girls feel violated and betrayed. It’s also important to understand that jokes about death aren’t really comparable to this. It’s a lot more likely that these boys would actually perform the acts they are talking about particularly when none of their other friends show any negative feelings towards rape. It creates a situation where rape can be seen as okay to these people

It's more about the expectation about something entering the public domain.

And if you honestly believe such individuals were to undertake such actions.... fine.... but odds are, they wheren't, and it should be up to the courts to prove that. And in "banter" chats such as those, I think it's obvious they honestly think rape is wrong. I joke about the holocaust all the time, doesn't mean that I think the killing of 17 million people is right. As is the fact I don't believe my friends who join in actually believe that it is right!

I understand those girls are upset, but it's no different to finding out someone you considered your friend, saying nasty things about you to other people. By the universities own policies such individuals should be kicked out! The mature response from the girls involved would to cut contact with the people involved. The mature response from the lads is to apologise and give the girls their space.
Warwick is in a quite sticky situation as they will be criticised whether they choose to let the boys in, or continue to exclude them.

I personally think it is fine to let them in, but I would definitely not welcome them in with open arms. At the end of the day, giving them a second chance would be the appropiate course of action.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you