The WOKE Generation!

Post Reply New Topic

^That could be where the "fag" or "fa***t" for "homosexual male" came from

I would say, probably, that at least some of these "relationships" were sexually exploitative in nature.

The word fa***t has been used in English since the late 16th century as an abusive term for women, particularly old women, and reference to homosexuality may derive from this as female terms are often used with reference to homosexual or effeminate men.

Honestly, I feel that some Boomers were actually at least as radical as some Zoomers.

1968 was a crisis year, rather like 2021 was a crisis year. People were scared about "the s--- hitting the fan" in 1968, perhaps even more than the prevailing feeling today. Two very prominent people were assassinated that year: Robert F. Kennedy, and Martin Luther King.

King, arguably, was more prominent than Kennedy. There are now many streets, avenues and Boulevards named after him. There is not one place in the US, with over 50,000 people, that doesn't have a Martin Luther King something.

^That could be where the "fag" or "fa***t" for "homosexual male" came from

I would say, probably, that at least some of these "relationships" were sexually exploitative in nature.

Yeah I was gonna mention that. In Victorian one gender only boarding schools "the junior high kids had to work as servants for the highschool kids" (as my parents explained to us when we were all watching Tom Brown's School Days on PBS when sis and I were that age). And you can image how serving could become servicing in a one gender only environment. Interestingly the word 'punk' originally meant 'a permanently glowing stick used to light fuses of cannons'. It later became slang for 'a boy sexually exploited by an older man' before the nonsexual 20th meanings like 'petty street thug' to punk rock and steam punk etc. Both punk and fa***t were originally 'sticks set on fire'.

Geez buddy....

Yale Law School promised student activists last week that it would bar press from a panel on free speech featuring Kristen Waggoner, the conservative lawyer whose last talk at the law school ended in a police escort. The group hosting the event, Yale Law School’s chapter of the Federalist Society, agreed to those ground rules, students said.

On Tuesday, the school kept its word, barring the Washington Free Beacon from covering the event. Administrators stated that media were also forbidden from lingering in the hallways outside the event, in keeping with the law school’s published media policy, and asked that all attendees show a Yale Law School ID.

Whatever policies are on the books, this appears to be the first time many of them were enforced—and certainly the first time they were enforced so aggressively. Clustered outside and speaking on the condition of anonymity, students and professors alike said they had never seen such a forceful and well-coordinated attempt to control access to an event.

The spectacle suggests that last year’s meltdown, in which student protesters drowned out a panel on free speech featuring Waggoner and Monica Miller, an attorney with the American Humanist Association, still haunts the law school, which has been seeking to rehabilitate its reputation in the wake of the fallout. Fourteen federal judges announced this fall that they would no longer hire clerks from Yale Law, saying the incident—and the school’s failure to discipline those involved in it—demonstrated an unacceptable hostility to conservative views.

The event on Tuesday appears to have gone without a hitch. Nadine Strossen, the former president of the American Civil Liberties Union, joined Waggoner, the president of the Alliance Defending Freedom, for what was by all accounts a cordial, well-mannered discussion of First Amendment law. Students exiting the event said there were no ear-shattering chants, no profanity-laden signs, and no ad hominem questions.

"There was not even a peaceful protest," Strossen told the Free Beacon.

It was a sharp contrast to last March, when protesters chanted, heckled, banged on doors, and cursed out attendees. The fracas was so intense that Waggoner, who has argued a slew of religious liberty cases before the Supreme Court, had to be escorted out of the building by the police.

In an apparent bid to avoid more controversy, the law school told student activists last week that "no press" signs would be "prominently displayed" and administrators would "enforce this." It also said—to the activists’ chagrin—that it would not commit to making a public statement of support in the event that attendees were "doxxed," saying that doing so might only draw more media attention.

Strossen on Monday criticized the school’s decision to ban press and undergraduates from the event. That move was "sadly ironic" for an event about free speech, Strossen said, calling it "unjustifiable."

Before reading the "outrage" it might be worth asking who this person is.
In 2013 florist Barronelle Stutzman declined to provide flowers for a same sex wedding based on her deeply held Christian beliefs. Same sex marriage was legalized in Washington in 2012. The case went all the way to the Washington State Supreme Court where Waggoner argued the case based on First Amendment grounds. The court decided against Stutzman to which Waggoner responded:

If the government can ruin Barronelle for peacefully living and working according to her faith, it can punish anyone else for expressing their beliefs. The government shouldn’t have the power to force a 72-year-old grandmother to surrender her freedom in order to run her family business. Anyone who supports the First Amendment rights that the U.S. Constitution guarantees to all of us should stand with Barronelle.

The case was submitted to the United States Supreme Court for review. On June 25, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the petition for a writ of certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case to the Supreme Court of Washington for further consideration in light of the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision. On June 6, 2019, the Washington Supreme Court unanimously ruled against Stutzman again, finding no evidence of religious animus] Stutzman's attorneys once again requested the U.S. Supreme Court to take her case, but certiorari was denied in July 2021.

Stutzman opted to settle with Ingersoll in November 2021, paying him $5,000, as she was getting close to retirement and wanted to stop accumulating legal fees related to the case. While she had filed a petition for rehearing in September 2021 to the Supreme Court, she withdrew it following the settlement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristen_Waggoner

Sounds like she supports the right for a business to discriminate against whom they choose not to serve. What next? do businesses have the legal right to not serve disabled people?? I can see why Waggoner is a nasty piece of work

Before reading the "outrage" it might be worth asking who this person is.
In 2013 florist Barronelle Stutzman declined to provide flowers for a same sex wedding based on her deeply held Christian beliefs. Same sex marriage was legalized in Washington in 2012. The case went all the way to the Washington State Supreme Court where Waggoner argued the case based on First Amendment grounds. The court decided against Stutzman to which Waggoner responded:

If the government can ruin Barronelle for peacefully living and working according to her faith, it can punish anyone else for expressing their beliefs. The government shouldn’t have the power to force a 72-year-old grandmother to surrender her freedom in order to run her family business. Anyone who supports the First Amendment rights that the U.S. Constitution guarantees to all of us should stand with Barronelle.

The case was submitted to the United States Supreme Court for review. On June 25, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the petition for a writ of certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case to the Supreme Court of Washington for further consideration in light of the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision. On June 6, 2019, the Washington Supreme Court unanimously ruled against Stutzman again, finding no evidence of religious animus] Stutzman's attorneys once again requested the U.S. Supreme Court to take her case, but certiorari was denied in July 2021.

Stutzman opted to settle with Ingersoll in November 2021, paying him $5,000, as she was getting close to retirement and wanted to stop accumulating legal fees related to the case. While she had filed a petition for rehearing in September 2021 to the Supreme Court, she withdrew it following the settlement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristen_Waggoner

Sounds like she supports the right for a business to discriminate against whom they choose not to serve. What next? do businesses have the legal right to not serve disabled people?? I can see why Waggoner is a nasty piece of work

I suspect the students desired to get prestigious jobs overruled their wokeness.

While some might see the student's as "reactionary" and programmed (what you call woke). they ate just being young and idealistic.

According to former British PM David Lloyd George - A young man who isn't a socialist hasn't got a heart; an old man who is a socialist hasn't got a head.

I think this makes a lot of sense.

People on the right of politics get too overheated over young liberals staging protests against social dinosaurs like Kristen Waggoner. Yes a free forum mean't she should be given the right to speak unmolested. But then it doesn't take a genius to determine she is merely packaging cruel intentions in the guise of political rights.

What the right don't realise is that ethics/morality override archaic constitutional rights that favour some over others.

While some might see the student's as "reactionary" and programmed (what you call woke). they ate just being young and idealistic.

According to former British PM David Lloyd George - A young man who isn't a socialist hasn't got a heart; an old man who is a socialist hasn't got a head.

I think this makes a lot of sense.

People on the right of politics get too overheated over young liberals staging protests against social dinosaurs like Kristen Waggoner. Yes a free forum mean't she should be given the right to speak unmolested. But then it doesn't take a genius to determine she is merely packaging cruel intentions in the guise of political rights.

What the right don't realise is that ethics/morality override archaic constitutional rights that favour some over others.