The Student Room Group

Warwick Rape Joke Students- 3 expelled 2 banned for a year, rest fined.

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Axiomasher
Both.


At least you're honest but that's a pretty abhorrent view. We expel people for thinking the wrong thing now so we?
Original post by limetang
If the rules of the university said, for example, that pupils couldn't have sex with members of the same sex, would you be defending the university in quite the same way.


Such a rule would be illegal in the UK but setting that aside I would protest it and campaign for the institution to be boycotted until it changed its stance. I certainly wouldn't enrol with an institution where they had rules I strongly disagreed with, especially if I thought they were rules I was likely to breach, would you?
Original post by limetang
At least you're honest but that's a pretty abhorrent view. We expel people for thinking the wrong thing now so we?


If by their words they show themselves to be significantly in conflict with the institution's values and policies, yes. Imagine I am a primary school teacher, I keep a diary about how I would like to have sex with some of the younger children should the opportunity present itself, though I go on to suggest that I would never really do such a thing, it's just a harmless fantasy that I have. Imagine that that my diary is stolen in a burglary and ends up in the hands of a parent at the school who reads some of my revealing entries. Now imagine that parent is you, do you simply return the diary to me, no questions asked or throw it in the bin with no more thought or action? Haven't you become aware of something serious about my thoughts and values which are in conflict with the position I hold, with the institutional expectations of teachers?
Original post by Axiomasher
Ultimately yes, I should be held to account for my words once they've become public, assuming, as you suggest, they reflect 'evil' values or intentions.
yes, you may of course be publicly criticised

but, could your "evil intentions" be sanctioned by a punishment, such as in this case ?

best
Original post by mariachi
yes, you may of course be publicly criticised

but, could your "evil intentions" be sanctioned by a punishment, such as in this case ?

best


Yes, again if your words show you to fall foul of an institution's rules of which you are subject I don't think it can be otherwise. The institution is duty bound to act on breaches no matter how notice of the breach has come to them, in my view.
Original post by Axiomasher
If by their words they show themselves to be significantly in conflict with the institution's values and policies, yes. Imagine I am a primary school teacher, I keep a diary about how I would like to have sex with some of the younger children should the opportunity present itself, though I go on to suggest that I would never really do such a thing, it's just a harmless fantasy that I have. Imagine that that my diary is stolen in a burglary and ends up in the hands of a parent at the school who reads some of my revealing entries. Now imagine that parent is you, do you simply return the diary to me, no questions asked or throw it in the bin with no more thought or action? Haven't you become aware of something serious about my thoughts and values which are in conflict with the position I hold, with the institutional expectations of teachers?
you know, it's always possible to "interpret" a text. You may be writing a novel, or describing someone else's situation, or playing "devil's advocate" and writing the exact opposite of what you actually think etc etc

but the real problem, in my view, is different : do you, so to say, lose the ownership of your thoughts, once you put them to paper (or on your hard disk) ? can your thoughts themselves be punished, once discovered ?

Many think that there is an entity called "god" who knows all about our thoughts, and will punish us if we indulge in "evil" thoughts, instead of suppressing them immediately... but, who is morally entitled to play "god" ? and, can we really suppress our thoughts ?

I would say no. So, it's really difficult to draw clear lines, and I see slippery slopes all over the place

best
Original post by Axiomasher
Yes, again if your words show you to fall foul of an institution's rules of which you are subject I don't think it can be otherwise. The institution is duty bound to act on breaches no matter how notice of the breach has come to them, in my view.
So, you thinking something (and jotting it down) can be considered a "breach" ? a "thought crime" ? even if you never intended to make it public ?
Original post by mariachi
...but, who is morally entitled to play "god" ? and, can we really suppress our thoughts ?

I would say no. So, it's really difficult to draw clear lines, and I see slippery slopes all over the place

best


Institutions we voluntarily become members of can 'play god' in this sense as far as our words and deeds are concerned. Nobody is forced to have conversations about who they would like to rape. Nobody is forced to join a university either. In this case it is only by the voluntary engagement in both things that these students rendered themselves vulnerable to 'the gods'.
Original post by Axiomasher
Institutions we voluntarily become members of can 'play god' in this sense as far as our words and deeds are concerned. Nobody is forced to have conversations about who they would like to rape. Nobody is forced to join a university either. In this case it is only by the voluntary engagement in both things that these students rendered themselves vulnerable to 'the gods'.
well, playing "god" can be a dangerous thing : however, I think that I will leave it at that

good night
Original post by mariachi
So, you thinking something (and jotting it down) can be considered a "breach" ? a "thought crime" ? even if you never intended to make it public ?


You're in danger of indulging in a sleight of hand by characterising something written down as 'thought crime' i.e. as if merely thinking something is the same thing as committing it to text. Otherwise, yes, once you've rendered your thoughts 'permanent' in written form you are vulnerable to consequences.
Original post by Axiomasher
Such a rule would be illegal in the UK but setting that aside I would protest it and campaign for the institution to be boycotted until it changed its stance. I certainly wouldn't enrol with an institution where they had rules I strongly disagreed with, especially if I thought they were rules I was likely to breach, would you?


You’re missing the point. There was a time in the not too distant past where it WOULDN’T have been an illegal rule and it is conceivable that all universities could have had such a rule (though I’m not sure all or any DID). Are you suggesting that it would have been wrong for homosexual students NOT to boycott these universities and sacrifice their own future by not attending?

That’s the point of my comment. I mean I think near enough all universities unduly overreach into the personal lives of their students and all universities will have some rules I disagree with. That doesn’t stop me attending and wouldn’t stop me saying it’s unjust if I was expelled for breach of one of these rules. I still attend because to do otherwise would be far worse for me and my long term prospects.
Original post by Axiomasher
You're in danger of indulging in a sleight of hand by characterising something written down as 'thought crime' i.e. as if merely thinking something is the same thing as committing it to text. Otherwise, yes, once you've rendered your thoughts 'permanent' in written form you are vulnerable to consequences.


The only material difference between a thought that is inside your head and a thought you’ve written down in a private diary is that we can read diary’s but we can’t read minds.

I’d agree if you were characterising the difference as being between publishing something and a private thought. But here there is absolutely no difference between the two beyond the practical point that we can discover what someone wrote down but can’t discover what someone is thinking.
(edited 5 years ago)
Original post by limetang
The only material difference between a thought that is inside your head and a thought you’ve written down in a private diary is that we can read diary’s but we can’t read minds.


Agreed, but it is what it is. If you reveal yourself to have values or intentions contrary to your institutions rules by committing something to writing and it becomes known to them they have to do something about it. It's absurd to think they should ignore it because there was no intention for it to be made public. As long as something stays private then, sure, there'll be no action because there'll be no knowledge.
Original post by Axiomasher
Agreed, but it is what it is. If you reveal yourself to have values or intentions contrary to your institutions rules by committing something to writing and it becomes known to them they have to do something about it. It's absurd to think they should ignore it because there was no intention for it to be made public. As long as something stays private then, sure, there'll be no action because there'll be no knowledge.


So you admit this the characterisation of this as thoughtcrime is accurate?
Original post by limetang
You’re missing the point. There was a time in the not too distant past where it WOULDN’T have been an illegal rule and it is conceivable that all universities could have had such a rule (though I’m not sure all or any DID). Are you suggesting that it would have been wrong for homosexual students NOT to boycott these universities and sacrifice their own future by not attending?

That’s the point of my comment. I mean I think near enough all universities unduly overreach into the personal lives of their students and all universities will have some rules I disagree with. That doesn’t stop me attending and wouldn’t stop me saying it’s unjust if I was expelled for breach of one of these rules. I still attend because to do otherwise would be far worse for me and my long term prospects.


Are you suggesting that rape and suggestions as to rape will one day be accepted across wider society as homosexuality has been? I don't see the association. Personally I think 'frat boys' should crowd-fund their own university where they can say what they like all day long, no rules, no consequences.
Original post by limetang
So you admit this the characterisation of this as thoughtcrime is accurate?


No, once communicated it is no longer merely a private thought.
After reading what kinds of things they were actually saying in their chats from a link further up.... how the HELLLL are people defending them?! They are actually SICK! The only things I was thinking was how can people think like this - they’re literal psychopaths. People saying that that stuff is a joke are you ****ing crazy?! Oh lawd I’m actually scarred from reading that **** and I’m actually scared now like you never know what kinda person you’re talking to are you...
They wrote some racist and discussed some harmful stuff, yes, but they did it in private away from others. I also doubt that they didn't keep friendly with the people they were bantering about, maybe a few of them were outright friends too. Whilst I would disagree with them doing something in front of the affected people or even in a manner that causes shame, this was done in complete privacy and should not be subject to such penalties. I find that, usually, European universities were better at understanding the line between free speech and political pandering, but now I think that the UK is falling more in-line with the horror story that's the US with it's affirmative action and social-justice warrior identity politics.
Original post by Sxnna.16
After reading what kinds of things they were actually saying in their chats from a link further up.... how the HELLLL are people defending them?! They are actually SICK! The only things I was thinking was how can people think like this - they’re literal psychopaths. People saying that that stuff is a joke are you ****ing crazy?! Oh lawd I’m actually scarred from reading that **** and I’m actually scared now like you never know what kinda person you’re talking to are you...


I know, right? There's a complete failure on the part of some posters in this thread to understand the gravity of what these students were saying and the impact it has once it has become public, not just on the targeted females but on the wider student body and the institution itself.
Original post by Axiomasher
I know, right? There's a complete failure on the part of some posters in this thread to understand the gravity of what these students were saying and the impact it has once it has become public, not just on the targeted females but on the wider student body and the institution itself.


How does it have an impact on the public and "wider student body" when they were intending to keep it private? It's like saying a housewife watching porn is "harming the kids by making them aware of sex"... :colonhash:

Quick Reply

Latest