University of Warwick suspends 11 students over rape jokes

I don’t overlook this at all. Students, for example, make targeted jokes about their professors. According to the dignity policy, this would be a violation of the rules. But, we don’t see such proceedings taking place; nor would we likely see them as appropriate when the joke was made in private.

But they weren’t being offensive to the other students. If I say to Joe that Mary is fat, in a private text message, is that offensive? Who determines offensiveness? And what type of offensiveness qualifies? No one is being bullied or harassed here.

Decent people, you know what they are? Decent people will never find amusement in rape. The Queen would be horrified to hear of your defence of this, as would your mother no doubt. Anyone who goes out of their way to participate in 'jokes' that over and over again suggest that rape is fun are very suspect. If the Queen reads this post, and I hope she does, then you will not be getting an invite the the next Garden Party.

...Just because something is unpopular doesn't mean it wrong...

And it doesn't mean it isn't wrong, very wrong, either. Would you be happy to tell your mother that rape jokes are cool? Jokes that go on and on and on about how funny or cool it would be to rape this student or that student? Go on, go ask her now, she's right behind you, brushing your hair.

I understand the need for the university protect their reputation.Im more interested in whether society should actually be offended considering the initial intentions, and i feel it ties closely to cases such as the Count Dankula (though obviously that differs in circumstances)

Can I just say that I would.

And it doesn't mean it isn't wrong, very wrong, either. Would you be happy to tell your mother that rape jokes are cool? Jokes that go on and on and on about how funny or cool it would be to rape this student or that student? Go on, go ask her now, she's right behind you, brushing your hair.

Then please do and offer us a quote as to what she said in reply, I'll trust you.

I must say, I admire the way you don't ever quote my...

I like how you think because you and your family live a nasty sheltered existence everyone must.

So you actually up for it or nah?

I like how you think because you and your family live a nasty sheltered existence everyone must.

More like not every family are ***** that think being edgy is cool and if you aren't vile you must be sheltered. But hey, each to their own.

Either 1 tasteless joke is wrong (and by extension 100 SCs of them are wrong) or 1 tasteless joke is not wrong (and by extension 100 SCs of them are not wrong). I don't see how the large number changes anything, other than perhaps suggesting these were not said "for joke reasons". In that case, I think the university should be more concerned with rapes these students have committed and less concerned with jokes said in a private chat.

@999tigger did you put this poll on? Mediation? I think you've been doing too much of ACAS grievance advice. "Causes actual harm" because it concerned particular students -- wrong. Those students would not, in the expectation of the posters in the GC, have ever seen the info.

Interest that I mention ACAS, the process of grievance meetings are underpinned by natural justice, so an employer cannot behave contrary to this. The university should review the messages in vacuo and use the principles of natural justice to objectively assess the situation, and the specific culpability of participants' particular acts and so on, and should not consider reputation (which does not depend on the in vacuo culpability of the participants, namely because the participants never expected the private information to be leaked (nor should they have an expectation such information might be leaked, unless those jokes are inherently in vacuo culpable)).

I disagree that it normalises behaviour, because tasteless jokes are told because they are shocking. They are based on a societal rejection of an idea, a rejection you implicitly have also, which you shock others by exploiting for humorous effect. If it were "normalised" then it would not be shock humour. It would be making a joke about a kettle, inherently normal and not shock worthy. Its being normal would mean it would lose shock value. I can only see one scenario where people might joke about this even though they do not find it shocking, and that is when it involves genuine rapists. I find it rather unlikely these students are monsters of this order.

I feel like...

So do you apply that reasoning to everything?

One pint a week is not wrong, so by extension 50 pints a week is not wrong. Or the only other alternative is one pint a week is wrong, and so 50 pints a week is wrong.

Don’t be so obtuse, what a poor argument.

One instance is not suggestive of underlying attitudes and behaviour. It’s a one off, just like if a person lost their tempter and shouted as a one off. Multiple and consistent instances of a behaviour is suggestiv of attitudes and character. Just like how losing ones temper and shouting multiple times a day, versus the one off.

You can’t be so obtusely black and white about human behaviour, it’s illogical.

I feel like you said something you didn't really mean.

So you're not going to triple dare me. The meek will inherit the earth indeed.