Is this hate speech?

[Peter Morris]

From the registration agreement (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=423183)

Hate speech, insults, and purposely inflammatory remarks (i.e., trolling) will not be tolerated.


From the FAQ (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7697044#post7697044)
Hate speech directed against any race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, or gender is a violation of our rules, as outlined in the Registration Agreement.

Can we please have a ruling on a particular word. I think it counts as hate speech.

The word is woo-woo (or woowoo, or just simply woo) as used twice in the OP of this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=12591166#post12591166).

It's a pretty vile term, in my opinion, and obviously designed to cause offense. I think that there is as much hatred packed into that word as there is in faggot or kike. It is used by the OP to denigrate anyone who doesn't have the exact same set of beliefs that he has.

In my opinion anyone using that term should get a warning from the mods.

[ivan astikov]

You should try being called a Conspiracy Theorist. You wouldn't believe how much venom and contempt lies behind those 2 innocuous words.

[Colibri]

No, it's not hate speech. It's somewhat dismissive, but it's not even remotely hate speech.

[Marley23]

I agree with Colibri. Hate speech has a specific meaning and we pretty much stick to the legal definition where that's concerned. "Woo" is not even a hateful word, it's just derisive. People who believe in the stuff that gets called woo - call them believers, spiritualists, whatever you like - are also not a race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, or gender. That also goes for conspiracy theorist, CTer, Truther/Twoofer, birther, etc.

[Skammer]

Hate speech? Seriously? I didn't even know what "woo-woo" referred to until I followed the link (I thought maybe it referred to a female body part :)). I've been called worse things than that since lunch.

It's dismissive and derisive - but really you need thicker skin.

[Exapno Mapcase]

I'm curious which category of "race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, or gender" woo-woo violates.

[Peter Morris]

No, it's not hate speech. It's somewhat dismissive, but it's not even remotely hate speech.

I agree with Colibri. Hate speech has a specific meaning and we pretty much stick to the legal definition where that's concerned. "Woo" is not even a hateful word, it's just derisive. People who believe in the stuff that gets called woo - call them believers, spiritualists, whatever you like - are also not a race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, or gender. That also goes for conspiracy theorist, CTer, Truther/Twoofer, birther, etc.

So, just out of interest, if someone were to refer to Dio as a sKKKeptic would you allow that?

How about a discussion of American politics, in which the terms "Republicanazi" or "Democ-RAT" get thrown about. Would that be permissible?

[Bosstone]

How about a discussion of American politics, in which the terms "Republicanazi" or "Democ-RAT" get thrown about. Would that be permissible?It happens all the time.

[BigT]

I'm curious which category of "race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, or gender" woo-woo violates.

Religion. Duh. They're making fun of people for what they believe.

"Conspiracy theorist" is attacking the person, not the argument.

[FloatyGimpy]

Hate speech? Seriously? I didn't even know what "woo-woo" referred to until I followed the link (I thought maybe it referred to a female body part :)). I've been called worse things than that since lunch.

It's dismissive and derisive - but really you need thicker skin.

I think that from now on, all vaginas must now be referred to as "woo-woo's"

[Colibri]

So, just out of interest, if someone were to refer to Dio as a sKKKeptic would you allow that?

How about a discussion of American politics, in which the terms "Republicanazi" or "Democ-RAT" get thrown about. Would that be permissible?

Those aren't "hate speech" either.

[Marley23]

So, just out of interest, if someone were to refer to Dio as a sKKKeptic would you allow that?
That would be a personal insult. So no.

How about a discussion of American politics, in which the terms "Republicanazi" or "Democ-RAT" get thrown about. Would that be permissible?
That does happen, and no, it's not hate speech. It's childish, and if it got out of hand in Great Debates I might advise people to stop it, but it's allowed in general. You're not allowed to insult SDMB users, but you're allowed to say negative things about groups that some Dopers belong to. Referring to political parties by names like "Repugs" is allowed under that rule.

[Peter Morris]

That would be a personal insult. So no.

Ah, well, there's the thing. It seems to me that woowoo and sKKKeptic are pretty much opposite sides of the same coin. I can't see any difference between them. If one is allowed, so should the other be. And if one is forbidden, the other should be as well.

[Bosstone]

Ah, well, there's the thing. It seems to me that woowoo and sKKKeptic are pretty much opposite sides of the same coin. I can't see any difference between them. If one is allowed, so should the other be. And if one is forbidden, the other should be as well.

You're not allowed to insult SDMB users, but you're allowed to say negative things about groups that some Dopers belong to. Referring to political parties by names like "Repugs" is allowed under that rule.I would infer that calling a group "woowoos" is allowable. Calling you, Peter Morris, a woowoo, would not be.

[Guinastasia]

Insults and hate speech aren't the same thing. Calling someone a "woo woo" maybe considered an insult. But hate speech? If you honestly consider it on the same level as "kike" or "faggot", you really, really have issues.

[Colibri]

Ah, well, there's the thing. It seems to me that woowoo and sKKKeptic are pretty much opposite sides of the same coin. I can't see any difference between them. If one is allowed, so should the other be. And if one is forbidden, the other should be as well.

The KKK is an organization that has been involved in the violent repression of black people and other minorities, including murder, beatings, firebombings, and other crimes.

I'm not really seeing a close similarity in the level of insult to the use of "woowoo."

[Czarcasm]

Ah, well, there's the thing. It seems to me that woowoo and sKKKeptic are pretty much opposite sides of the same coin. I can't see any difference between them. If one is allowed, so should the other be. And if one is forbidden, the other should be as well.O.K.-what word would you prefer we use for those who reject science and embrace nonsense?

[Marley23]

Religion. Duh. They're making fun of people for what they believe.
That's not what "woo" means. It's a catchall term for New Agey spiritual-type stuff. (Cite from www.skepdic.com. (http://www.skepdic.com/woowoo.html)) And making fun of people for what they believe is not necessarily hate speech. Diogenes the Cynic was talking about people who believe in ghosts, not religionists or theists. And actually he used the word in an unusual way. Usually it's the ideas that are described as "woo," not the people who believe in them.

Ah, well, there's the thing. It seems to me that woowoo and sKKKeptic are pretty much opposite sides of the same coin. I can't see any difference between them. If one is allowed, so should the other be. And if one is forbidden, the other should be as well.
Like Bosstone says, you used one as a hypothetical insult of one person. Diogenes made a general statement.

[ivan astikov]

O.K.-what word would you prefer we use for those who reject science and embrace nonsense?

Catholics?

[Peter Morris]

Like Bosstone says, you used one as a hypothetical insult of one person. Diogenes made a general statement.

Dio made a personal attack on several people at once. He comment was directed at a small group of specific individuals who had posted in a particular thread. So, he was insulting several people at once rather than one person at a time.

Would I be permitted to say something like "The people in this thread who disagree with me are obviously a bunch of morons" thus insulting a group without identifying any individual? It's the same thing as Dio did.

[Oakminster]

Catholics?

Did you miss the threads where Doper after Doper posted about being taught science in Catholic schools? Including evolution?

[ivan astikov]

Yes, fortunately.

[Marley23]

Catholics?
Ironically - or not - this comes much closer to hate speech than the comments about woo. ;)

Dio made a personal attack on several people at once. He comment was directed at a small group of specific individuals who had posted in a particular thread. So, he was insulting several people at once rather than one person at a time.

Would I be permitted to say something like "The people in this thread who disagree with me are obviously a bunch of morons" thus insulting a group without identifying any individual? It's the same thing as Dio did.
You would not be allowed to refer to other posters as morons even if you did not name names. But morons and comparisons to Klansmen and Nazis are a lot more insulting than "woo-woos." I wouldn't warn you for calling another poster in the same thread "woo-woo," much less a different thread.

[Colibri]

Yes, fortunately.

Why fortunately? You prefer to remain ignorant on the subject of Catholics and science?

[ivan astikov]

Let's not go there.

[Colibri]

Let's not go there.

Good idea. Let's refrain from more comments of this kind in ATMB.

[Peter Morris]

The KKK is an organization that has been involved in the violent repression of black people and other minorities, including murder, beatings, firebombings, and other crimes.

I'm not really seeing a close similarity in the level of insult to the use of "woowoo."

Okay, then. What about Skep-dicks?

[Peter Morris]

Like Bosstone says, you used one as a hypothetical insult of one person. Diogenes made a general statement.

I wouldn't warn you for calling another poster in the same thread "woo-woo," much less a different thread.

There's a bit of a contradiction between those two statements, isn't there.

[Revtim]

I think that there is as much hatred packed into that word as there is in faggot or kike.How about you make a poll in IMHO and see if the majority agrees with you on that.

[Marley23]

There's a bit of a contradiction between those two statements, isn't there.

But morons and comparisons to Klansmen and Nazis are a lot more insulting than "woo-woos."

Diogenes the Cynic was indeed making a comment about a group of posters. I meant to acknowledge that explicitly in post #23 but I deleted that line for some reason. The word he used isn't nice but it doesn't rise to the level of being a personal insult. It does not compare in terms of nastiness to sKKKeptic, faggot*, Republicanazi, or skep-dick. Any of those words would merit a warning. "Woo-woos" doesn't. "Woo-woos" means "posters who believe in things I am characterizing as woo." Not polite, but again, not a personal insult and not even within light years of being called hate speech.

*So faggot and kike are the only word used in this thread that would probably qualify as hate speech.

[Peter Morris]

That's not what "woo" means. It's a catchall term for New Agey spiritual-type stuff. (Cite from www.skepdic.com. (http://www.skepdic.com/woowoo.html)) ... And actually he used the word in an unusual way. Usually it's the ideas that are described as "woo," not the people who believe in them

This isn't correct, by the way. As a counter cite, just see any page from Randi's website. Approximately every 100th word is "woowoo" or some variant. It is not just New Age stuff, it's anything from a scientist expressing an opinion that ESP might possibly be real, to a musician expressing the opinion that Stradivarius violins sound better than other types. Both the people and the ideas get called "woowoo", but 9 times out of 10, it is the people. Dio's usage is the usual.

[Peter Morris]

Diogenes the Cynic was indeed making a comment about a group of posters. I meant to acknowledge that explicitly in post #23 but I deleted that line for some reason. The word he used isn't nice but it doesn't rise to the level of being a personal insult. It does not compare in terms of nastiness to sKKKeptic, faggot*, Republicanazi, or skep-dick. Any of those words would merit a warning. "Woo-woos" doesn't. "Woo-woos" means "posters who believe in things I am characterizing as woo." Not polite, but again, not a personal insult and not even within light years of being called hate speech.

*So faggot and kike are the only word used in this thread that would probably qualify as hate speech.


In the first place, you've contradicted yourself again. You said in post #12 that Republicanazi is "allowed in general" but now would "merit a warning"

In the second place, you objected to references to nazis, or the KKK. Point taken, but "skep-dick" has neither of those. I think it's exactly equal in nastiness to "woowoo." Allowing one, but banning the other is a double standard.

[Oakminster]

In the second place, you objected to references to nazis, or the KKK. Point taken, but "skep-dick" has neither of those. I think it's exactly equal in nastiness to "woowoo." Allowing one, but banning the other is a double standard.

"skep-dick" contains a vulgarity. You're calling the target a dick.

"woowoo" does not contain a vulgarity. The target is being called silly.

[Sage Rat]

This isn't correct, by the way. As a counter cite, just see any page from Randi's website. Approximately every 100th word is "woowoo" or some variant. It is not just New Age stuff, it's anything from a scientist expressing an opinion that ESP might possibly be real, to a musician expressing the opinion that Stradivarius violins sound better than other types. Both the people and the ideas get called "woowoo", but 9 times out of 10, it is the people. Dio's usage is the usual.
The word "woo" is synonymous with "magic".

[Fear Itself]

In the second place, you objected to references to nazis, or the KKK. Point taken, but "skep-dick" has neither of those. I think it's exactly equal in nastiness to "woowoo." Allowing one, but banning the other is a double standard.Skep-dick is only insulting because of the -dick part, because it is a vulgar allusion to a penis. If I called you a woo-dick, that would be equivalent to skep-dick. Woo-woo characterizes your views as not worthy of consideration, but it contains no intrinisic vulgarity.

[Marley23]

In the first place, you've contradicted yourself again. You said in post #12 that Republicanazi is "allowed in general" but now would "merit a warning"
You're right, I'm sorry. It's been a long week and I obviously need to take a break and resume this later. I was vague about this: I would give a warning if you called another poster a SKKKepdic, skep-dick, faggot, or Republicanazi. If you were making a comment about (say) the Republican party in general, Republicanazi would not merit a warning.

In the second place, you objected to references to nazis, or the KKK. Point taken, but "skep-dick" has neither of those. I think it's exactly equal in nastiness to "woowoo." Allowing one, but banning the other is a double standard.
The double standard exists only in your head. If you call another poster a skep-dick, you are clearly calling him a dick. It's the second half of the word. It's still a much nastier insult that "woo-woo." I am happy to continue on this vein later if you like, but I don't think your argument holds any water.

[Peter Morris]

"skep-dick" contains a vulgarity. You're calling the target a dick.

"woowoo" does not contain a vulgarity. The target is being called silly.

woowoo means vagina. See earlier posts in this thread.

[Peter Morris]

The double standard exists only in your head. If you call another poster a skep-dick, you are clearly calling him a dick.

woowoo means vagina. If you call someone a woowoo you are clearly calling him a cunt.

[Sage Rat]

woowoo means vagina. See earlier posts in this thread.

A) Your personal definition of the word is irrelevant. Society defines the meaning of a word, not you.
B) Even if it did mean "pussy", society defines the relative nastiness of a word not logic. Calling a woman a cunt is not equivalent to calling a man a dick. The former is generally seen in the US as being far more insulting.

[Fear Itself]

I think that from now on, all vaginas must now be referred to as "woo-woo's"

woowoo means vagina. See earlier posts in this thread.

Woowoo does not mean vagina. Gimpy was making a joke.

[samclem]

woowoo means vagina. See earlier posts in this thread.

woowoo means vagina. If you call someone a woowoo you are clearly calling him a cunt.
Get a grip, Peter. woowoo doesn't mean vagina. Give me a legitimate cite that it does.

[Tamerlane]

woowoo means vagina.


What? No it doesn't. Or at least I have never, ever heard it used that way.

I've always understood it to be an onomatopoeia of the theremin music used in low-budget sci-fi and horror films. Hence its use to mock beliefs that many regard as science fiction.

[Peter Morris]

A) Your personal definition of the word is irrelevant. Society defines the meaning of a word, not you.

Woowoo does not mean vagina. Gimpy was making a joke.

See definition 4
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woowoo

[Tamerlane]

See definition 4
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woowoo

Yeah, I don't think that term has ever been used in that sense at the SDMB. It certainly is not the intended usage when somebody refers to ESP as "woowoo." See definitions #2 and #3

[Peter Morris]

Yeah, I don't think that term has ever been used in that sense at the SDMB.

see post 5.

[Sage Rat]

see post 5.
The one where he admitted to having misunderstood what people meant by it?

[Vinyl Turnip]

See definition 4
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woowoo

An unassailable reference. It should also be noted, however, that "Peter Morris" is common slang for a sex act so foul, it makes a Cleveland Steamer look like a Five Knuckle Shuffle.

Or at least it will be, if you'll allow me a moment to create the entry... catch my drift?

[Attack from the 3rd dimension]

Funniest thread ever. Hats off, guys.

[Properties of Iron]

See definition 4
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woowoo

If we're accepting urban dictionary as a source for meanings of term, then it very well could have been a group compliment! As in definition 5.

[Fear Itself]

The word is woo-woo (or woowoo, or just simply woo) as used twice in the OP of this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=12591166#post12591166).

...

It is used by the OP to denigrate anyone who doesn't have the exact same set of beliefs that he has.

woowoo means vagina. See earlier posts in this thread.So which is it?

[Guinastasia]

This isn't correct, by the way. As a counter cite, just see any page from Randi's website. Approximately every 100th word is "woowoo" or some variant.



And your point is...? :dubious:

[Fear Itself]

If we're accepting urban dictionary as a source for meanings of term, then it very well could have been a group compliment! As in definition 5.From the Urban Dictionary (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=vagina&defid=2278413) as well:vagina 3422 up (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=vagina&defid=2278413#), 352 down (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=vagina&defid=2278413#)

The female reproductive organ. Synonyms include:

copher, cunt, pussy, twat, cooter, beaver, fish lips, taco, camel toe, muff, snatch, fuck hole, garage, oven, love button, penis glove, cock sock, cock pocket, JJ, hoohah, bajingo, cum dumpster, sperm bottle, goop chute, slit, trim, quim, pooter, love rug, poontang, poonanie, cooch, tunnel of love, vertical bacon sandwich, bearded clam, cookie, cooleyhopper, nookie, the pink, honey pot, cunny, vag, meat curtains, hatchet wound, putz, fur burger, box, front bottom, gash, kebab, kitty, minge, snapper, catfish, vertical smile, lovebox, love canal, nana, flower, the cum dump, chocha, black hole, sperm sucker, fish sandwich, cock warmer, whisker biscuit, carpet, deep socket, cum craver, cock squeezer, slice of heaven, flesh cavern, the great divide, cherry, tongue depressor, clit slit,laps, fuzz box, fuzzy wuzzy, glory hole, grumble, man in the boat, mud flaps, mound, peach, piss flaps, the fish flap, he furry cup, stench-trench, wizard's sleeve, DNA dumpster, tuna town, split dick, bikini bizkit, cock holster, cockpit, snooch, kitty kat, poody tat, grassy knoll, cold cut combo, Jewel box, rosebud, curly curtains, furry furnace, slop hole, velcro love triangle, nether lips, where Uncle's doodle goes, altar of love, cupid's cupboard, bird's nest, bucket, cock-chafer, love glove, serpent socket, spunk-pot, hairy doughnut, fun hatch, spasm chasm, red lane, stinky speedway, bacon hole, belly entrance, sugar basin, sweet briar, breakfast of champions, wookie, fish mitten, fuck pocket, hump hole, pink circle, silk igloo, scrambled eggs between the legs, black oak, Republic of Labia, juice box, Golden Palace, fetus flaps, skins, sausage wallet, Holiest of Holies, sugar hole, The Death of Adam, home plate, Deer Hoof, Golden Arches, Cats Paw, Mule Nose, Yo Yo Smuggler, Mumbler, Dinner Roll, Crotch Waffle, Piss Fenders, crack, Melvin, Dove Breast, Brakepads, Vedgie, Slurpy, Vacuum Vulva, Pastrami Flaps, Hot Tamaki Walk, Buffalo Gums,Rooster Jaws, Wagon Ruts, Beaver Teeth, Mumble Pants, Ninja Boot, Marcia, Skin Canoe, Fatty, Mossy Jaw, The Big W, Chia Hole, Lip Jeans, Beetle Hood, Hungry Minge, Welly Top, Frum, Pancake Fold, Tongue Roll, Bologna Flap-Over, Furrogi (Poland), Fortune Nookie, Bearded Taco, Calamari Cockring, Displabia, Slot Pocket, Bluntfrunt, Fishamjig, Pole Magnet, Pocket Pie, Clamarama, kitty cage, Chicken's tongue, Conch shell, Crack of heaven, Dog's mouth, Door of life, Fly catcher, Fruit cup, Jelly roll, Lobster pot, bunny tuft, knish, her asshole neighbor, lotus, nappy dugout, moneymaker, womens weapon, tackle box, bone hider, red sea, pizzo, jizz recepticle, The Helmut Hide-A-Way, hairy heaven, furry 8 ball rack, crave cave, arbys with fur, fish canyon, toolshed, snake charmer, Furby, Enchilada of love, Ham sandwich, Camarillo brillo, Brazilian caterpillar, dick rack, boy in the canoe, flesh tuxedo, Mound of Venus, queef quarters, Venus butterfly, cream canal, apple pie, pie, wet mark, private area, thresher, punash, salami garage, slurpee machine, pink cookie, penalty box, ground zero, meat crease, bait, birth canal, holy grail, pole hole, pork pie, fuzz bucket, one-eyed python trail, bubble gum by the bum, stink rink, theme park, saloon doors, pink truffle, bitter & twisted, burger bar, meat counter, temperamental ringpiece, python syphon, big bud, the Wombsday Book, the condo downstate, snake lake, the indoor barbecue, pound cake, beef tomato, tickled pink, launch pad, horn of plenty, the indoor picnic, hamper of goodies, flapped bap, bonefish, close encounter with the turd kind, sperm bank, man's charity bash, bush tucker, midnight dip, the one-door vulva, the welcome opponent, the Twatlantic Ocean, temporary lodgings, field of dreams, bean, cooze, old catchers mitt, devil's hole, lucy, pish buffet, pooswaa, poonaner, davey jones locker, pink panther, tinker bell, south mouth, dick eater, wonder bread, wolly bolly, foxhole, hot pocket, head catcher, Lawrence of A Labia, silk funnel, dick driver, purple people penis eater, ponchita, cherry pop tart, fat rabbit, scunt, pee jaws, mingus, The Notorious V.A.G., dugout, babyoven, penis parking, cooter muffin, the promised land, cha cha, the shrine, bitch ditch, fury pink mink, mammal hole, ever-lasting cum stopper, the toothless blow job, happy flappy, wilt chamberlian's daily glove, the code defierthe salt water taffy factory, mommy's pie, the easy bake oven, the deflower patch, the virginator, the schlong sucker, the dea bone patch, the vegitarian's temptation, the vegan store, the blow hole, the pump protector, bag pipe, Spitball Bullseye, meat wagon, pickle stinker, jezebel's smell, yoni, willys haven, scrumpter, peach, sweat box, yeast pocket, penis warmer, tampon tunnel, penis pothole, cucumber canal, egg drop Box, sperm shack, dick dungeon, cock curator, b.o.b.'s bungalow, mommy parts, tuna pot pie, nice slice, peter vise, rack of clam, peters grove, penis purse, grandest canyon, fish dish, banana box, tuna spread, pink portal, count fapula, red river gorge, happy valley, revolving in/out door, baby zipper, richards house, stop-n-pop, bone polisher, packin shack, weiner wrap, clap trap, dildo hotel, axe gash, pearl hotel, sea food six pack, clam canal, coose canal, dick deposit, wand waxer, vidgie, erie canal, candy kiss, gauntlet, round mound of beehound,lick n' stick, lap flounder, tomahawk chop, chin-chin, pachinko, cuntry pie, lip tip, the big casino, one eyed worm hole, amazon forest, cock cave, fuck donut, coochie pop, babby, wet seal, pissy froth hole, bald biscuit, the unmentionable, mans ruin, peeshie, hairy potter, courtney cocksleve, panty hamster,deep pink, jaws of life, gizmo, faith, cock magnet, slippery slide, Meat tunnel, pink heaven, squid, dick basket, hot spot, poochika, pudding, bowl, love cave, squeeze-box, he bone collector, goodie basket, depository, pink turtleneck, bread-box, little debbie, pole hole, pandora's box,snail tracker, cuntzilla, homebase, pud pocket, bear trap, indian bones and the temple of poon, chanch, big montana, noochie, choot, golden valley, nappy roots, dick mitten, mystical fold, red bread, meat locker, douche luge, pushin cushion, cocktease
A pretty exhaustive list. But no woo-woo.

[Revtim]

I'm sure I've heard woowoo as a vagina reference somewhere. But that's completely beside the point, since terms can have multiple meanings. When it's used in reference to new-age crap and ghosts and that stuff, it's simply a different meaning.

[Max the Immortal]

See definition 4
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woowoo

Definition 4 has more votes down than votes up. That makes it an anti-cite.

[Peter Morris]

http://dbellel.blogspot.com/2007/12/wee-wee-cocky-doody-and-woo-woo.html

[FloatyGimpy]

Funniest thread ever. Hats off, guys.


Ah man, this thread is killing me. I can't even tell who's joking or serious anymore.

[Exapno Mapcase]

I'm sure I've heard woowoo as a vagina reference somewhere. But that's completely beside the point, since terms can have multiple meanings. When it's used in reference to new-age crap and ghosts and that stuff, it's simply a different meaning.

You're probably thinking of Christina Aguilera's new song (http://www.directlyrics.com/christina-aguilera-woo-hoo-lyrics.html).
You know you really wanna (hey)
Wanna taste my (woohoo)
You know you wanna get a peak
Wanna see my (woohoo)
You know you wanna put your lips
Where my hips are (woohoo)
Kiss all my (woohoo)
All over my (woohoo)

And even that is linguistically superior to PM's argument.

Especially since definition #5 on his own Urban Dictionary cite says that woowoo is "A person who looks good and does something spectacular."

Really, PM? You're saying that you object to being called "A person who looks good and does something spectacular"?

And it turns out that if you click the ad you go to a page (http://www.urbandictionary.com/products.php?term=woowoo&defid=388687) from which you can buy woowoo mugs, t-shirts, hats and bumper stickers! We should make them rich!

[rolandgunslinger]

Just for the record I would have no problem kissing all of Christina Aguilera's woo hoo.

[Colibri]

see post 5.

You do see the smilie there, indicating he was making a joke?

[Czarcasm]

http://dbellel.blogspot.com/2007/12/wee-wee-cocky-doody-and-woo-woo.htmlAnd again I ask you-what word would you prefer we use for those who reject science and embrace nonsense?

[DanBlather]

Woo-woos is just shorthand for 'a credulous person who believes in ideas that are without merit, violate laws of physics, are indemonstrable, strain logic, and are just plain silly".

[FloatyGimpy]

Nah, dude. "woo-woo" means there's gonna be a knife fight!

[Sleeps With Butterflies]

nah, dude. "woo-woo" means there's gonna be a knife fight!

butthurt!

[FloatyGimpy]

butthurt!

Shits about to get real all up in here.

[Attack from the 3rd dimension]

And again I ask you-what word would you prefer we use for those who reject science and embrace nonsense?

Cooter?

[Peter Morris]

You do see the smilie there, indicating he was making a joke?

You do realize that the "joke" only works because woowoo is widely understood to mean cunt?

[Fear Itself]

You do realize that the "joke" only works because woowoo is widely understood to mean cunt?No it isn't. The joke works because woo-woo was associated with the vagina in the joke.

[ivan astikov]

Woot woo, I can see a woowoo!

[Attack from the 3rd dimension]

First one to get Woowoo as my personal title. Woowoo!

[Czarcasm]

You do realize that the "joke" only works because woowoo is widely understood to mean cunt?I think you should apologize to all women for using "widely" and "cunt" in the same sentence. We all know what you meant.

[kayaker]

My neice refers to her 4 year old female bits as her "WeeWee". I will correct her.

[Exapno Mapcase]

And again I ask you-what word would you prefer we use for those who reject science and embrace nonsense?

"ivan astikov"

[ivan astikov]

"ivan astikov"

"I can count to potato!"

[Colibri]

You do realize that the "joke" only works because woowoo is widely understood to mean cunt?

The joke only works because woowoo isn't "widely understood" to mean anything in particular, which was the point of Skammer's remark.

[Peter Morris]

No, the point of Skammer's remark is that he had only heard the word used for female genetalia.

I don't even see how your interpretation is possible.

[Guinastasia]

No, the point of Skammer's remark is that he had only heard the word used for female genetalia.

I don't even see how your interpretation is possible.

Peter, may I kindly advise that you just get over it already?

[Marley23]

Peter Morris, if you like, you can continue to believe woowoo means vagina and that it's a terrible insult. But you've failed to prove it to anybody else, and it's not going to be moderated that way.

[zut]

"When someone else uses a word," Peter Morris said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less."

[Peter Morris]

Peter Morris, if you like, you can continue to believe woowoo means vagina and that it's a terrible insult. But you've failed to prove it to anybody else, and it's not going to be moderated that way.

Yeah, right, it's only me, and Skammer, and Urban Dictionary, and Mel Brooks, but you know better than all of us.

It is a FACT that woowoo is used by many people to mean vagina. That make3sit the same level of insult as dick.

The problem is that you have double standards. The moderators allow so-called skeptics to get away with murder, when attacking superstition. But no criticism of skeptics is permitted, even when they are obviously lying, or otherwise acting like dicks. I have always found this to be so.

[Marley23]

Yeah, right, it's only me, and Skammer, and Urban Dictionary, and Mel Brooks, but you know better than all of us.
"All of us?" Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

To review:
*Skammer said he didn't know what the word means, and guessed (incorrectly) that maybe it meant vagina. He never said he'd heard it used as a synonym for vagina.
*The definition has a negative rating at Urban Dictionary, with all of 26 votes in favor and 31 against. That definition is ranked ninth, far behind definitions including "Unfounded or ludicrouse beliefs" (+110) and "extraordinary beliefs for which it is felt there is insufficient extraordinary evidence, and people who hold those beliefs," (+85) which is how the term is used here. Your version is tied at -5 with "A drink that is like 99.9% fruit juice. it is also a term used to describe the people that drink them."
*Mel Brooks used "woo woo" in High Anxiety as a substitute for womb (uterus, not vagina) because there were children in the conference room and his character was embarrassed to use the word womb in front of them. The joke is that his character is being oversensitive and dumbing himself down because he is afraid of offending children. And he is obviously not using the word to mean "someone who believes in pseudoscience."

These are some of the worst cites I have ever seen on this board. You've got a guess, an Urban Dictionary cite that even Urban Dictionary voters don't agree with, and joke from a Mel Brooks movie. It is time for you to give this up.

[Fear Itself]

The problem is that you have double standards. The moderators allow so-called skeptics to get away with murder, when attacking superstition. But no criticism of skeptics is permitted, even when they are obviously lying, or otherwise acting like dicks. I have always found this to be so.And yet you continue to post here.

[Colibri]

No, the point of Skammer's remark is that he had only heard the word used for female genetalia.

I don't even see how your interpretation is possible.

As Marley points out, Skammer never said he had heard it used to refer to female genitalia, and explicitly said he did not know what it referred to:

[Peter Morris]

Marley, you are just making a ridiculous justification. You permit so-called skeptics ti insult their opponents with "woo-woo" but you don't permit their opponents any come-back. Your claim that there is a difference between "woowoo" and "skep-dick" is nonsensical.

Whether you like it or not, woowoo is a widely used term for female genitals.

To review:[list]
*Skammer ... guessed (incorrectly) that maybe it meant vagina.

Nice circular reasoning there.

*Mel Brooks used "woo woo" in High Anxiety as a substitute for womb (uterus, not vagina)

You need to watch the clip again. He distinctly says that woowoo means "the female erogenous zone."


And he is obviously not using the word to mean "someone who believes in pseudoscience."

No, he's using the word to mean vagina.

And here's the thing. It's a famous and much quoted movie. Millions of people know woowoo as a synonym for vagina through seeing this movie.

These are some of the worst cites I have ever seen on this board. You've got a guess, an Urban Dictionary cite that even Urban Dictionary voters don't agree with, and joke from a Mel Brooks movie.

Oh, really? I can produce several thousand cites if you want. All I need do is Google "woowoo vagina" and find a huge number of people who agree with Mel & me, and disagree with you.

Are you going to claim that every single one of them is wrong?

Here's a few hits where people talk about vaginas and call them woowoos
WARNING: some may be NSFW, and some may be TMI

http://prince.org/msg/100/257070?pr

http://cuntlove.wordpress.com/2009/10/13/diva-cup-menstrual-product-alternatives/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/8/105251/7242

http://thefastertimes.com/unconventionalrelationships/2010/05/11/hell-respect-my-vagina-in-the-morning/comment-page-2/

http://www.richardsonschuster.com/selections.html


And there's plenty more where that came from. I could quite easily find a thousand cites.

[ivan astikov]

If someone can call me a woowoo, can I call them a twat?

[Attack from the 3rd dimension]

This thread just gets better and better.


How long 'til it's up for Threadspotting? Time to think of titles for it:

Is w**w** the w*rst w*rd ever?

[Drew Kit]

I've never heard woo-woo being used as a term for vagina, I would've remembered that. To me it is the sound a little boy makes when he pushes his toy train into a tunnel so I would've guessed differently. Mind you, I thought cunt meant penis for the first few years after I heard the word, and that could've been a disasterous misjudgement.

Everyone believes something irrational at some point in their lives, if only because adults contrive to lie to children. Since science progresses, things we hold to be rational now will be irrational in future. Any rational person who experiences first hand something that they can not explain should be free to discuss it without being labelled

[DanBlather]

Marley, you are just making a ridiculous justification. You permit so-called skeptics ti insult their opponents with "woo-woo" but you don't permit their opponents any come-back. Your claim that there is a difference between "woowoo" and "skep-dick" is nonsensical.

Whether you like it or not, woowoo is a widely used term for female genitals. Are you aware that some words have more than one meaning? Gross=144, gross=icky, gross=before any deductions. So if some asks what your gross income is are you going to say they insulted you, are you going to multiply by 144, or are you going to use your brain and figure out the context?

In this case, woo-woo is widely used to refer to pseudoscience or those who believe in it, and less widely used to mean cunt. Use you brain and figure out from the context what someone is referring to in a thread about pseudoscience.

[Contrapuntal]

And here's the thing. It's a famous and much quoted movie. Millions of people know woowoo as a synonym for vagina through seeing this movie..Well then, hundreds of millions know that it wasn't over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor.

[Peter Morris]

Are you aware that some words have more than one meaning?

That's kind of the entire point.

"Dick" is a forbidden insult on this board, because it has more than one meaning. It can be a detective, short for Richard, male genitals, a type of sponge cake, or an obnoxious person.


In this case, woo-woo is widely used to refer to pseudoscience or those who believe in it, and less widely used to mean cunt. Use you brain and figure out from the context what someone is referring to in a thread about pseudoscience.

And likewise, if someone calls you a dick, they are probably saying you are an obnoxious person, and probably not claiming that you are literally a penis.

[CarnalK]

Not very likewise.

[MOIDALIZE]

You're all a bunch of quijibos.

[Clothahump]

I think that from now on, all vaginas must now be referred to as "woo-woo's"

Sorry. The official term is "hoo-hoo". An acceptable regional variant is "hoo-hah".

[Oakminster]

Marley, you are just making a ridiculous justification. You permit so-called skeptics ti insult their opponents with "woo-woo" but you don't permit their opponents any come-back.

I'm confident that if you wish to Pit someone for using "woowoo" in ways you find annoying that no moderator will warn you for it, so long as you comply with Pit rules. That said, I suspect that such an attempted Pitting would backfire rather spectacularly.

Bottom line here is that "people that believe in paranormal powers" is not now, and does not appear likely to become, a protected class on the order of race, religion, gender, national origin, or sexual preference.

[Attack from the 3rd dimension]

Sorry. The official term is "hoo-hoo". An acceptable regional variant is "hoo-hah".

That's it!The perfect title for threadspotting: Woo woo: is it a hoo-hah?

[ivan astikov]

Or, What's the hoo hah about the woo woo?

[MOIDALIZE]

Official thread theme song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIKORxPeFq8&feature=related)

[Exapno Mapcase]

Words have meaning only in context. As I've said many times here, context is everything.

The context of woowoo in the original post by Diogenes was utterly clear. Especially when he used this sentence: "Give me your stories of woo."

Nobody on earth could read that sentence in the context of a post about ghost stories and think it was being used to mean vagina.

The total lack of reason in understanding the issue, the arbitrary and capricious definitions, the ignoring of countering arguments, and the sheer repetitiveness of assertions shown to be nonsense are all ironically hallmarks of woowoo debates.

You've managed to embarrass and discredit the entire community of woo by your behavior in this thread. All I can say is, thank you from our side.

[Colibri]

"Dick" is a forbidden insult on this board, because it has more than one meaning. It can be a detective, short for Richard, male genitals, a type of sponge cake, or an obnoxious person.


Peter, you are aware that "peter" also means a dick, aren't you?

Are you going to start claiming hate speech when someone calls you Peter?;)

[Zoe]

There is an antiquated use of "woo" in the expression "pitching woo" which meant to flirt and flatter. It was considered sort of an art. (One that didn't require material like the composition of poetry.) That makes me think that the term may have been associated with love or seduction at some time.

Fear Itself, "the Mound of Venus" is actually something else, but Oh, you kid!

Czarcasm: And again I ask you-what word would you prefer we use for those who reject science and embrace nonsense?

I would call them teachable. But first I would be sure that both parts of that description are correct.

And I ask you: What word would you prefer we use for those who reject cosmic possibilities even though they claim to embrace science?

Marley, I noticed that you have arbitrarily decided to exclude Spiritualism and New Ageism from the heading of Religion. Also, somehow, "belivers" don't seem to make the grade with you.

Somewhere around here I have an excellent resource that I bought when I was seventeen which has served as a reference for me on the world's religions. That was in 1960, I believe. It included both Spiritualism and New Ageism even at that time. I think that you will find that "the New Age" is a little older than you think. It goes back over a hundred years. Spiritualism began about the middle of the Nineteeth Century. Arthur Conan Doyle was a Spiritualist. (And a man who valued science too, of course.)

[Peter Morris]

Nobody on earth could read that sentence in the context of a post about ghost stories and think it was being used to mean vagina.

And when someone says that you are a dick, nobody would think that you actually are a penis.

Do you understand that this is EXACTLY the same thing?



You've managed to embarrass and discredit the entire community of woo by your behavior in this thread. All I can say is, thank you from our side.

In the first place, I am and have always been a sceptic.

In the second place, YOU and people like you, using vile termsof abuse like woowoo who embarass and discredit sceptics. So rot you from our side.

[Smeghead]

I've read a huge number of incredibly stupid threads here in my time. This is quite possibly the worst.

Although, come to think of it, it does shed new light on that old classic "WOO! I am masturbating like a motherfuck!"

[Marley23]

You permit so-called skeptics ti insult their opponents with "woo-woo" but you don't permit their opponents any come-back.
If you can invent a comeback that doesn't break the rules on personal insults, that would be allowed.

Whether you like it or not, woowoo is a widely used term for female genitals.
Which is why your cites are a joke from a Mel Brooks movie, 26 votes on Urban Dictionary, and your own misunderstanding of Skammer's post.

You need to watch the clip again. He distinctly says that woowoo means "the female erogenous zone."
He starts to say womb and says "woo woo" instead. I love Mel Brooks but this argument is completely stupid.

All I need do is Google "woowoo vagina"
If that's how you want to spend your evening, knock yourself out. It would still not prove what you are insisting it does.

[Peter Morris]

You've managed to embarrass and discredit the entire community of woo by your behavior in this thread. All I can say is, thank you from our side.

Okay, then moderators. Marley23, or Collibri, or anyone. Look back at post #18. Marley made the distinction between "a hypothetical insult of one person" while "Diogenes made a general statement."


In the above quoted post, Exapno Mapcase made an insult directed at me personally. He is accusing ME of being a woo. Apart from being totally untrue, it breaks Marley's rule against insults directed at a single person.

So, are you going to do anything about it, moderators, or will you chyange your minds again, as you have done several times this thread?

I have, by the way, been on the receiving end of this sort of crap many times in the past. And it always feels like hate speech to me.

[Marley23]

In the above quoted post, Exapno Mapcase made an insult directed at me personally. He is accusing ME of being a woo. Apart from being totally untrue, it breaks Marley's rule against insults directed at a single person.
Maybe the ATMB mods will feel differently but I don't think he's done anything that is verboten here. He is talking about your posts in this thread, and commenting on someone else's posts is allowed. And I've said that "woo" is not a personal insult whether it is used to describe a person or a belief.

I have, by the way, been on the receiving end of this sort of crap many times in the past. And it always feels like hate speech to me.
As noted by many people in this thread, I don't think you understand what hate speech is. It is not hate speech just because they are saying things you don't like or because they are being rude.

Marley, I noticed that you have arbitrarily decided to exclude Spiritualism and New Ageism from the heading of Religion. Also, somehow, "belivers" don't seem to make the grade with you.
It's not an arbitrary distinction. They are broad categories and not religions in particular. If you hear that some is into New Age spirituality you really are not going to have a specific idea of what he or she believes. You'll have a general impression that the person might believe in energy crystals or psychic powers or any number of other nonsensical things that are taken from a variety of religious and spiritual traditions.

You're correct that Spiritualism meant something more concrete in the late 19th century, but that meaning has pretty much died off. (Heh.) Unless Conan Doyle is going to post here through a medium I think we can discount that usage.

[Peter Morris]

Which is why your cites are a joke from a Mel Brooks movie, 26 votes on Urban Dictionary, and your own misunderstanding of Skammer's post.

I've produced many other cites. But you ignore them all.

Try this one.

The Vulva: An Owner's Manual (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/teen-talk/body-mind/anatomy/vulva-an-owners-manual-25172.htm)

So, what's a vulva? The vulva is the whole female genital "package" — labia, clitoris, vagina, and urethral openings. This part of our anatomy gets called lots of funny names — coochie, woo-woo, "down there," and it's sometimes confused with the vagina — the stretchable passage that connects a woman's outer sex organs with the cervix and uterus.

[Marley23]

I've produced many other cites. But you ignore them all.
Your cites are terrible. I don't know what else to say about them. You're using an Urban Dictionary cite with a negative rating, meaning most of the voters do not agree it means vagina.

Your comparison fails - miserably - because these two meanings of "woo woo" are not related to each other. Dick was slang for penis and then became a word for an obnoxious person because it already meant penis. (By the way, here is a Straight Dope staff report on "Dick." (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2030/what-came-first-dick-or-dick)) There is no connection between "woo woo" as a term for spiritual nonsense and vagina. Maybe I'm wrong and you've been citing Urban Dictionary while waiting to pull out your trump card, which is a cite showing that skeptics started using "woo woo" on spiritualists because it means vagina. But I suspect you don't have that cite because it is not the case. Mel Brooks was not making a crude reference to skeptics in High Anxiety, and Diogenes the Cynic was not calling believers in magick - or their beliefs - vaginas.

[Exapno Mapcase]

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7697044#post7697044

Are there any rules on insulting other posters?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Generally, you may not directly insult other posters. The strictness of this rule varies a bit by forum, but the basic rule is that you should attack what the other person says, not the other person.

The only exception is the forum called The BBQ Pit, where flaming other posters is permitted.

Hate speech directed against any race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, or gender is a violation of our rules, as outlined in the Registration Agreement.

And please note the difference between an insult directed against a person and an insult against a large group.
ACCEPTABLE: "Anyone who likes the music of Enema is soulless and lacks taste in music."
NOT ACCEPTABLE: "You like Enema's music? Then you're soulless and have no taste in music."

What Peter Morris has said in this thread is drivel. I will continue to insist that Peter Morris himself is unquestionably woowoo, using solely the definition provided in his own link, "A person who looks good and does something spectacular."

[Fenris]

Look--you guys know you're never going to convince Pete, don't you? IIRC, he's the guy who spent years harassing Randi because he (Pete) misread/misinterpreted something Randi wrote and as such decided that this meant he'd won Randi's Million Dollar Challenge as a result. Here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=5394177), here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=394028), here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=403756) and here on Randi's board as well (he's got a crapload of posts there too--doing the same thing) (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=23964), just to demonstrate a very few.

I'm not trying to stifle debate, just letting people know that they will never, ever, ever convince Pete no matter what. Have fun poking him with sticks, but don't get stressed out when he doesn't budge regardless of facts.

[Peter Morris]

And I've said that "woo" is not a personal insult whether it is used to describe a person or a belief.

That actually contradicts what you said earlier.

Just as a reminder:

Bosstone (post #14) I would infer that calling a group "woowoos" is allowable. Calling you, Peter Morris, a woowoo, would not be.

Marley23 (pot#18) Like Bosstone says, you used one as a hypothetical insult of one person. Diogenes made a general statement.


So, it was Bosstone (not a mod) who said that calling me a woowoo would not be allowable. And you, who ARE a mod, explicitly agreed with him. Right there, you agreed that calling me, specifically, a woowoo would not be allowable.

So, someone calls me a woo, and instead of issuing a warning, you allow it. Right there is a contradiction. You have repeatedly contradicted yourself throughout the thread.

The fundamental problem is that insulting someone by calling them a woowoo doe3s break the rules of the board. You want to let them get away with it, and tie yourself up in knots making excuses for them.

Frankly I don't care if you warn Mapcase or not. I knew you wouldn't do so. I'm just pointing out yet another contradiction in your behaviour.

[Peter Morris]

And I suppose you'll also let Fenris get away with his jerkish behaviour, and his deliberate misrepresentation too.

[Peter Morris]

Your comparison fails - miserably - because these two meanings of "woo woo" are not related to each other.

cite?

The origin of woowoo as a term for supernatural is unknown. Claiming that it comes from theramin music is only a guess, with no facts to back it up. I can guess that it comes from woowoo meaning vagina, and my guess has as much authority as yours does.


Dick was slang for penis and then became a word for an obnoxious person because it already meant penis. (By the way, here is a Straight Dope staff report on "Dick." (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2030/what-came-first-dick-or-dick))

again, cite?

The staff report makes no mention of the obnoxious person usage of dick. I say thjat use of dick as obnoxious person actually derives from dick meaning policeman.

[Marley23]

What rule did Fenris break just now, Peter Morris?

So, it was Bosstone (not a mod) who said that calling me a woowoo would not be allowable. And you, who ARE a mod, explicitly agreed with him. Right there, you agreed that calling me, specifically, a woowoo would not be allowable.
I did not say that. I agreed with him on one point, which was that you had used the terms in different ways, with sKKKeptic directed at an individual and other words directed at groups of people.

[Colibri]

And I suppose you'll also let Fenris get away with his jerkish behaviour, and his deliberate misrepresentation too.

Peter, if we were to start issuing warnings for "deliberate misrepresentation" in this thread, you would have at least ten by now.

And the only reason you're not receiving a warning for trolling is that, based on your previous behavior, I really can't rule out the possibility that you might actually believe some of the nonsense you're coming out with.

[Marley23]

I can guess that it comes from woowoo meaning vagina, and my guess has as much authority as yours does.
You can't seriously expect us to start warning people for using a word because you think your guess about its meaning is equally valid to someone else's. You have not proved that "woo woo" is equivalent to dick because it's a sexual slang-based insult. They're not similar as far as I can tell, and I don't see any reason to treat them like they are- certainly not based on your own evaluation of a guess. I might choose to give a mod note for using "woo woo" to refer to individuals in GD if I think it's going to take a conversation off track, but I don't see it as an insult that deserves a warning. And I usually don't give warnings in this forum because I'm not one of the ATMB mods.

[Fenris]

What rule did Fenris break just now, Peter Morris?
I disagreed with him. That's a banning offense--we all know that Marley.

But since we both know that I got those pics of you with the squirrel, the waffle iron and the marshmallow schnapps, I think you can be "trusted" to let me 'get away with it'. If you know what's good for you.

And I think you do.

[Marley23]

That squirrel was legal, man. Check under the tail.

[Fenris]

Peter, if we were to start issuing warnings for "deliberate misrepresentation" in this thread, you would have at least ten by now.

As an aside, the only thing that I wrote that could possibly be considered a "deliberate misrepresentation" is that Pete "misread/misinterpreted something Randi wrote" as opposed agreeing with Pete's...um...peculiar point of view about that situation.

And since Pete's stance is that "woowoo" means "vagina" because someone on the internet said it somewhere once or twice, I'm untouchable by his own rules: I can find thousands of posts disagreeing with Pete or yelling at Pete or trying to help Pete understand that he's just completely wrong, but I can't find a single person online who agrees with Pete*. So the entire internet is my cite and I'm unassailable.


*Note--finding a single instance of someone on Pete's side doesn't matter by Pete's rules. Dissenting views, even a majority of them, apparently don't change the "Someone on the internet said it" standard.

[Peter Morris]

What rule did Fenris break just now, Peter Morris?

In the first place, he has broken the rule "don't be a jerk." by resurrecting an old argument. It is deliberately inflammatory, trying to get me involved in anargument about Randi.

In the second place, he has broken the following rule (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=423183)
"You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use the SDMB to post any material that you know or should know is false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or in violation of U.S. law. "

He has deliberately posted false, defamatory and inaccurate information. (I also consider it hateful and harassing, but you might disagree) to wit, he claims that I "misread/misinterpreted something Randi wrote"

The reality is that Randi makes up a lot of stories in which he has beaten fake psychics. They are all works of fiction, he's far to stupid to actua lly do it. I took a story Randi told, and agreed to take the test exactly as Randi described, to the letter. Randi backed off, because he knew he would lose, if he actually went through with it.

There was no misreading/ misinterpretation. I quoted Randi's exact words, and dared him to go through with them. Fenris knows this, but he chooses to lie about it.


The problem is that people such as Fenris know that Randi is a liar, and support him anyway, and hate me for exposing him.



I did not say that. I agreed with him on one point, which was that you had used the terms in different ways, with sKKKeptic directed at an individual and other words directed at groups of people.

Exactly. And you agreed that "woowoo" directed against one individual is not allowable. And now you backtrack, and refuse to follow through. You tie yourself up[ in knots making excuses for bad behaviour.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

No, it's not hate speech. Contempt for stupid beliefs is not hate speech.

[Peter Morris]

Peter, if we were to start issuing warnings for "deliberate misrepresentation" in this thread, you would have at least ten by now.

Cite?

Go ahead, find ONE deliberate misrepresentation I have made.

[Peter Morris]

As an aside, the only thing that I wrote that could possibly be considered a "deliberate misrepresentation" is that Pete "misread/misinterpreted something Randi wrote" as opposed agreeing with Pete's...um...peculiar point of view about that situation.

Of course you are making deliberate misrepresentations.

Look, here is what Randi said (http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/randi01.htm). Not just here, he has been telling the same story for at least 30 years. This is only one example.

I challenge all the dowsers in a similar way. Since 94 percent of the Earth's surface has water within drillable distance my challenge is to find a dry spot! They don't want to do it. Why? Because they only have a six percent chance of success.

I sent in my application, and agreed to find him a dry spot, using the EXACT protocol Randi has described on numerous occasions.


You know this, and you have deliberately lied about it.

[Bosstone]

Annnnd here we go.

[Revtim]

Is there any further point to this? I think it's clear that Peter Morris isn't ever going to convinced it's not hate speech, and nobody else is ever going to be convinced it is.

[Fenris]

Ladies, Gentlemen and Marley: to all the newbies. Remember what I posted in post 108? This right here is exactly what I mean. He stalked Randi for thirty years because of one misunderstood/misinterpreted sentence. He'll never, ever concede a point. Ever. Like I said, poke him with sticks, point and laugh at him, but don't try to take him seriously.


*30 years?!? I almost wrote "decades" rather than "years" in post 108 but wasn't sure how long it'd been. Over a quarter of a century with no-one on the entire internet supporting him. Wow....just....wow.

[Guinastasia]

I disagreed with him. That's a banning offense--we all know that Marley.

But since we both know that I got those pics of you with the squirrel, the waffle iron and the marshmallow schnapps, I think you can be "trusted" to let me 'get away with it'. If you know what's good for you.

And I think you do.

Oh Fenris, I do love you. :D


ETA: is Peter one of those people who believes in the whole "holding two sticks and seeing if they touch together to detect water" thing?

[Exapno Mapcase]

Look, here is what Randi said (http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/randi01.htm).

I absolutely love reading your links.
There is a hunger, a very strong hunger, within us all to believe there is something more than what the laws of nature permit. I'm not just saying audiences that watch the magician. I mean within us all. We'd like to have a certain amount of fantasy in our lives, but it's a very dangerous sort of temptation to immediately assume that it must be supernatural or occult or paranormal if we don't have an explanation for it.

[Peter Morris]

He stalked Randi for thirty years because of one misunderstood/misinterpreted sentence.

Well, mods, you can see how this jerk continues to insult me, and continues to lie. Are you going to do anything about it, or will you let Randi supporters break the rules with impunity, like you usually do?

[Czarcasm]

Well, mods, you can see how this jerk continues to insult me, and continues to lie. Are you going to do anything about it, or will you let Randi supporters break the rules with impunity, like you usually do?Thwnk you, Fenris.

[Munch]

You folks can call me a woowoo if you like, but I believe this thread is going to take a drastic turn, and will end with Fenris, Marley and Peter skipping through a field of daisies, hand in hand.

[Peter Morris]

Thwnk you, Fenris.

You're thwnking him for acting like a jerk? I'm just glad you aren't a mod any longer.

[Fenris]

Well, mods, you can see how this jerk continues to insult me, and continues to lie.

Actually, while I wouldn't junior mod, my understanding of the rules is that you were OK when you said I was engaging in "jerkish behavior", but I think that calling me a jerk in ATMB is in direct violations of the rules.

Could we have a mod weigh in on this please?

[Fenris]

You're thwnking him for acting like a jerk? I'm just glad you aren't a mod any longer.

What's the matter Pete? This post sounds pissy. Do you have sand in your woowoo?

[Guinastasia]

You know you've been spending too much time on Facebook when you automatically go to click "like".

[Peter Morris]

Actually, while I wouldn't junior mod, my understanding of the rules is that you were OK when you said I was engaging in "jerkish behavior", but I think that calling me a jerk in ATMB is in direct violations of the rules.

Could we have a mod weigh in on this please?

Just answer these questions. That will show if you are a jerk or not.

Q1) James Randi says there is water under 94% of the earth's surface. Do you think this figure is accurate?

Q2) James Randi has been saying "find me a dry spot" for at least 30 years. Do you think this is a sensible design for a test?

Q3) James Randi claims that he ALWAYS offered the test to dowsers and found that "they don't want to." Do you think he has done so, or is he lying?

What I think is that water is actually pretty rare and hard to find underground, it's a stupid way of running a test, and his claims that he challenged dowsers and they refused are all lies.

I sent in my application in order to prove a point. I knew he would chicken out of actually conducting the test, and I was right.

What I think is, you already knew that he's a liar, you support his lies, and hate me for exposing him. Which makes you a jerk.

[Fear Itself]

Time for your lithium again, Mr. Morris.

[Peter Morris]

Ah yes, another personal insult. Time for the moderators to do nothing about it.

[Fear Itself]

Ah yes, another personal insult. Time for the moderators to do nothing about it.What? Is lithium another word for cunt also?

[Marley23]

What I think is, you already knew that he's a liar, you support his lies, and hate me for exposing him. Which makes you a jerk.

Time for your lithium again, Mr. Morris.

Alright. Despite all the ridiculousness this is going over the line. It's time for everybody to dial it back.

[Stink Fish Pot]

whoo-whoo! (this in no way is meant to be confused with woo-woo, which has multiple meanings). whoo-whoo IS pronounced the same way as woo-woo, but that's not whoo-whoo's fault.

And a woo-hoo! is a Homer Simpson exclamation of happiness.

I still have no idea what is going on in here, but since I read all 3 pages, I felt compelled to respond.


One thing I am honestly confused by. Peter Morris, if you are this upset about something, why on earth do you pay to post here? You can get aggravated for free, you know.

[Peter Morris]

[quote] One thing I am honestly confused by. Peter Morris, if you are this upset about something, why on earth do you pay to post here? You can get aggravated for free, you know.

Because I am only occasionally annoyed by misbehaviour by a minority. Most of the time the Dope is a source of useful information, and interesting discussions on TV shows that I watch.

[Stink Fish Pot]

[QUOTE=Stink Fish Pot;12597188]



Because I am only occasionally annoyed by misbehaviour by a minority. Most of the time the Dope is a source of useful information, and interesting discussions on TV shows that I watch.

OK, well if you feel that you get some value for your money that's up to you, of course. But if you are letting yourself get riled over something that Dio (or whoever) posted, it's not worth the time and energy, is it?

[Peter Morris]

I don't care who posted it. It frustrates me every time.

[Stink Fish Pot]

I don't care who posted it. It frustrates me every time.

OK.... but since it seems to be a recurring issue for you, and there hasn't been any change in the board's point of view on the subject, would you not agree that continuing to bang your head against a wall is not the healthiest approach?

I don't have a dog in this fight at all, (before I opened this thread, I had no idea what a woo-woo was), but I do think that you have gone quite overboard in your protest.

You made your point, it was answered and dismissed, and yet for three pages you keep on about woo-woo's being vaginas.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to walk away from this thread. I don't think you will get the satisfaction you desire, perpetuating your frustration, and ultimately causing you more pain over an issue that has been determined to be a non-issue by the SDMB.

Just saying.

[Guinastasia]

whoo-whoo! (this in no way is meant to be confused with woo-woo, which has multiple meanings). whoo-whoo IS pronounced the same way as woo-woo, but that's not whoo-whoo's fault.

And a woo-hoo! is a Homer Simpson exclamation of happiness.


It's also the main chorus to Song 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Song_2).


Mods, why not just move this to the Pit? It's obvious Mr. Morris just wants to let 'er rip.

[Colibri]

Look--you guys know you're never going to convince Pete, don't you? IIRC, he's the guy who spent years harassing Randi because he (Pete) misread/misinterpreted something Randi wrote and as such decided that this meant he'd won Randi's Million Dollar Challenge as a result. Here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=5394177), here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=394028), here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=403756) and here on Randi's board as well (he's got a crapload of posts there too--doing the same thing) (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=23964), just to demonstrate a very few.

I'm not trying to stifle debate, just letting people know that they will never, ever, ever convince Pete no matter what. Have fun poking him with sticks, but don't get stressed out when he doesn't budge regardless of facts.

Of course you are making deliberate misrepresentations.

Look, here is what Randi said (http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/randi01.htm). Not just here, he has been telling the same story for at least 30 years. This is only one example.

I challenge all the dowsers in a similar way. Since 94 percent of the Earth's surface has water within drillable distance my challenge is to find a dry spot! They don't want to do it. Why? Because they only have a six percent chance of success.

I sent in my application, and agreed to find him a dry spot, using the EXACT protocol Randi has described on numerous occasions.


You know this, and you have deliberately lied about it.

MODERATOR INSTRUCTIONS

I don't want this thread to get any further derailed by getting into a yet another discussion of Randi and Peter's dispute with him (even if the thread did start out as a trainwreck.) Any further discussion of these subjects in this thread is off limits and may be subject to a Official Warning. (If you want to discuss this subject you may take it elsewhere, though I doubt anything new will be said that hasn't been said a thousand times already.)

[Peter Morris]

OK.... but since it seems to be a recurring issue for you, and there hasn't been any change in the board's point of view on the subject, would you not agree that continuing to bang your head against a wall is not the healthiest approach?

Fighting ignorance takes longer than I thought.

[Colibri]

Cite?

Go ahead, find ONE deliberate misrepresentation I have made.

Your post #75 was a clear misrepresentation of what Skammer said, as I have previously pointed out.

[Stink Fish Pot]

Fighting ignorance takes longer than I thought.

Funny. I was sitting here thinking the same thing.

[Czarcasm]

Fighting ignorance takes longer than I thought.Then help me out here.
What term would you prefer we use for those who reject science and embrace nonsense, other than "woo"?

[Peter Morris]

Your post #75 was a clear misrepresentation of what Skammer said, as I have previously pointed out.

:rolleyes:
And that's your best example of me misrepresenting things?

Let's look at what he says.

I didn't even know what "woo-woo" referred to until I followed the link (I thought maybe it referred to a female body part ).

First point: female genitalia is sometimes called woo-woo. This is a fact. Here is one example of that (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/teen-talk/body-mind/anatomy/vulva-an-owners-manual-25172.htm).

Second point: Skammer says that he thought it might refer to a female body part until he followed the link.

It is utterly obvious, beyond any doubt at all that he had already seen the word used for female genitalia. Do you really think it was just a random guess on his part?

[Peter Morris]

Then help me out here.
What term would you prefer we use for those who reject science and embrace nonsense, other than "woo"?


Moderators, please take note. This guy is being a jerk, again.

It's one of those questions like "Have you stopped beating your wife yet." I' hope I don't have to explain the logical fallacy here.

This is at least the third time he has posted this. He is trying to provoke me. When he failed to get a reaction, he posted it again and again. He is blatantly trying to stir up trouble. And he keeps on trying.

Could you please instruct him to knock it off.l

[Colibri]

Moderators, please take note. This guy is being a jerk, again.l

Moderator Warning

Marley23 has already instructed you to dial it back. Calling another poster a jerk in ATMB is a clear insult (one you've already used several times). I don't see anything that Czarcasm has done as being particularly provocative. This is an official warning.

[Peter Morris]

Seriously? You permit "woo" but obje3ct to "jerk" You really don't see a double standard there?

Well, Czarcasm, you got me to react after all. Happy now?

[Stink Fish Pot]

Perhaps the mods should consider closing this thread.

"whoo-whoo"! is the sound of the train that is currently going off the rails here.

It's almost painful to watch. It's like watching a slow motion car accident. I am guilty of rubbernecking and hanging around for the ambulance.

I need to check out of this thread.

[Attack from the 3rd dimension]

Then help me out here.
What term would you prefer we use for those who reject science and embrace nonsense, other than "woo"?



Again I nominate 'cooter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudemys)'. It's the perfect word, as it is the common name for a turtle, an armored, slow-moving reptile that pulls back into a shell when confronted.



*ahem*

I should mention, I suppose, in the interest of full disclosure, that, coincidentally, the term 'cooter (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cooter)' also means vagina, but I'm sure that will never be a problem.

[ivan astikov]

Anyone posting in this thread who is also a frequenter of the JREF, is either being obtuse or a full on troll if they don't recognise PM's objection to the words "woo woo"( hee. hee.) in the context to which they are usually used.

"Woo woo" might sound like a cuddly term of endearment, but it is meant to signify that the accused is guilty of thinking in a way only forgivable in those with mental problems. That, to me, is far worse than calling me a vagina, which is amusing, more than annoying.

I imagine that PM's main concern is that an attitude that is prevalent on another board, might well become firmly embedded in a board dedicated to fighting ignorance.

[raindog]

Diogenes the Cynic was indeed making a comment about a group of posters. I meant to acknowledge that explicitly in post #23 but I deleted that line for some reason. The word he used isn't nice but it doesn't rise to the level of being a personal insult. It does not compare in terms of nastiness to sKKKeptic, faggot*, Republicanazi, or skep-dick. Any of those words would merit a warning. "Woo-woos" doesn't. "Woo-woos" means "posters who believe in things I am characterizing as woo." Not polite, but again, not a personal insult and not even within light years of being called hate speech.

*So faggot and kike are the only word used in this thread that would probably qualify as hate speech.
Would "homo" qualify as hate speech?

[Idle Thoughts]

Hey now, I see about 30 posts in this thread alone where people call the OP "Peter". As many of you know, "peter" is slang for penis/dick/cock/etc.


I expect everyone to be warned within the hour and for the OP to be banned on the grounds of having a name that implies hate speech.

Or, you know, the OP can drop what's a very silly argument. : p

[Czarcasm]

Making the deliberately ignorant a protected class? Is this a joke thread?

[Exapno Mapcase]

I imagine that PM's main concern is that an attitude that is prevalent on another board, might well become firmly embedded in a board dedicated to fighting ignorance.

The term woowoo has been around in print for a quarter century and is probably much older than that. If it is used on the JREF board - I've visited but I don't frequent it - then it's only because it is the term universally used for such beliefs. A quick search found woowoo in 76 threads here dating back to 2002.

Woowoo is ignorance. It is a definition of ignorance. Just as conspiracy theorist is. Yes, it's a pejorative and it's most certainly meant to be. Hate speech? Sorry, no. Being ignorant or even deliberately stupid doesn't make you into a protected class. Vagina? Absurd. When one refers to a dog as a "an iron bar driven into a stone or timber to provide a means of lifting it." you cannot assume that what they're really saying is "an ugly, boring, or crude person." That's lunacy. Although the French may object to being called Frogs, anybody who confused that use with "a small holder made of heavy material, placed in a bowl or vase" or "a recessed panel on one of the larger faces of a brick or the like" has issues.

Words have many meanings, usually independently derived. You cannot arbitrarily shift from one meaning to another to wrench words out of context. That's practicing hate on speech, yet Peter Morris has done that consistently.

[LurkMeister]

:rolleyes:
And that's your best example of me misrepresenting things?

Let's look at what he says.

I didn't even know what "woo-woo" referred to until I followed the link (I thought maybe it referred to a female body part ).

First point: female genitalia is sometimes called woo-woo. This is a fact. Here is one example of that (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/teen-talk/body-mind/anatomy/vulva-an-owners-manual-25172.htm).

Second point: Skammer says that he thought it might refer to a female body part until he followed the link.

It is utterly obvious, beyond any doubt at all that he had already seen the word used for female genitalia. Do you really think it was just a random guess on his part?

How do you get from "I thought maybe it referred to a female body part" to "It is utterly obvious, beyond any doubt at all that he had already seen the word used for female genitalia"? While I freely admit it's been a while since I've had any hands-on experience in the matter, I vaguely remember that females have other "body parts" besides their genitalia. Perhaps the "female body part" Skammer was referring to was her breasts. Or her ass, or even her elbow. I had never heard "woo-woo" used to refer to a female's genitalia until I read this thread - the closest to it was "hoo-ha". I have, however, heard woo-woo used to refer to questionable belief systems, in the same context as Dio used it, and I would never have thought that he was using it the way you seem to think he is.

[Colibri]

Would "homo" qualify as hate speech?

It could, depending on context.

[Colibri]

Seriously? You permit "woo" but obje3ct to "jerk" You really don't see a double standard there?

No.

Well, Czarcasm, you got me to react after all. Happy now?

You can respond to his question, or you can ignore him, but "reacting" doesn't require calling him a jerk.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Would "homo" qualify as hate speech?

Lactose intolerant?

[Revenant Threshold]

The problem is that you have double standards. The moderators allow so-called skeptics to get away with murder, when attacking superstition. But no criticism of skeptics is permitted, even when they are obviously lying, or otherwise acting like dicks. I have always found this to be so. Surely there is an excellent way of determining these double standards - or, at the least, to get revenge on your detractors.

Given that woo-woo, in the terms used that you have complained about, is apparently an acceptable word, why not simply use it yourself, in those exact same terms, to insult people back? If you get moderated, you will have evidence of that double standard to parade. If you don't, you will have successfully insulted your opponents.

I mean, flip the situation around. You can't get the moderators to agree that an effective insulting term should be banned, or that it's worth moderation in some way. That also means you get to use it in those same terms.

[FloatyGimpy]

Peter Morris, I thought about you today. There's a local steam train that you can ride on here and it was crossing the road so all the traffic had to stop. Its whistle sounded like "Wooooooo......woowoowoowoooooooooo!!".

[Colibri]

Peter Morris, I thought about you today. There's a local steam train that you can ride on here and it was crossing the road so all the traffic had to stop. Its whistle sounded like "Wooooooo......woowoowoowoooooooooo!!".

[Moderator Note]

I don't see much point to this post other than to goad Peter. This thread is enough of a train wreck already. If you want to address Peter's posts, go ahead. If all you want to do is ridicule him, it would be better to do so in the Pit.

[FloatyGimpy]

[Moderator Note]

I don't see much point to this post other than to goad Peter. This thread is enough of a train wreck already. If you want to address Peter's posts, go ahead. If all you want to do is ridicule him, it would be better to do so in the Pit.


I wasn't actually goading him. I really did think about him today when I had to wait for for this (http://www.alberniheritage.com/alberni-pacific-railway/welcome-alberni-pacific-steam-railway) to pass by. It's an old train and it really does sound like "woooo!wooooo!".

[Zoe]

Zoe: Marley, I noticed that you have arbitrarily decided to exclude Spiritualism and New Ageism from the heading of Religion. Also, somehow, "believers" don't seem to make the grade with you.

Somewhere around here I have an excellent resource that I bought when I was seventeen which has served as a reference for me on the world's religions. That was in 1960, I believe. It included both Spiritualism and New Ageism even at that time. I think that you will find that "the New Age" is a little older than you think. It goes back over a hundred years. Spiritualism began about the middle of the Nineteeth Century. Arthur Conan Doyle was a Spiritualist. (And a man who valued science too, of course.)

Marley: It's not an arbitrary distinction. They are broad categories and not religions in particular. If you hear that some is into New Age spirituality you really are not going to have a specific idea of what he or she believes. You'll have a general impression that the person might believe in energy crystals or psychic powers or any number of other nonsensical things that are taken from a variety of religious and spiritual traditions.

You're correct that Spiritualism meant something more concrete in the late 19th century, but that meaning has pretty much died off. (Heh.) Unless Conan Doyle is going to post here through a medium I think we can discount that usage.

Check out the National Spiritualist Association of Churches: (http://www.nsac.org/) "Spiritualism is the Science, Philosophy, and Religion of continuous life, based upon the demonstrated fact of communication, by means of mediumship, with those who live in the Spirit World."

(Doesn't seem to have changed much since Arthur Conan Doyle's time.)

You are a moderator in ATMB and you don't even bother to look up your information? This isn't just chit chat, Marley. Spiritualism is not a religion that I am a part of. But I hate to see a moderator spreading ignorance so casually.

I can provide other links with more personal relevance if you continue to push the idea that Spiritualism isn't a current religion. Don't do this, Marley. You are wasting your time.

As for New Ageism, you say,

If you hear that some is into New Age spirituality you really are not going to have a specific idea of what he or she believes. You'll have a general impression that the person might believe in energy crystals or psychic powers or any number of other nonsensical things that are taken from a variety of religious and spiritual traditions.

You could say the same thing about the word "Protestant." That gives you only a general impression. So does the word "Presbyterian." There are many kinds of Presbyterians and you may have only a general impression from the word. Even within my own specific church building, we are a motley crew with differing opinions. I probably have a few beliefs that you would label "New Age." The women in my mother's family called it something else and they were all Southern Baptists.

You are the one who labels a lot of these beliefs and then says that they are not religious just because YOU are the one who is "not going to have a specific idea of what he or she believes." WE know what we believe. I'm sorry if you are all mixed up about labels. That doesn't mean that it isn't a religion.

[BunnyTVS]

Given that Peter Morris has himself used the term "woo-woo" to describe people "who totally believe in the paranormal", in one of links posted prviously. I would like to know which definition of "woo-woo" he meant.

[ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]

What if you use it in reference to yourself?

Actually...fuck it. We really did arrive at the same woowoo idea independently, and you know I have no reason to lie about that part. As far fetched as it might be, I'm crazy enough to run with it. Hopefully not off a cliff.

Unvote Mahaloth
Vote Drain

[Jackmannii]

I and many others have used the term "woo" to refer to bizarre misconceptions about medicine and attempts to treat various (real and imaginary) conditions. It's convenient shorthand for credulous silliness. It's nowhere near any form of hate speech, and trying to label it thus is part of a pathetic effort to avoid criticism.

Referring to "woos" or "woo-woos" is not something I generally do, preferring the term "alties", which is also not hate speech.

If credulous believers want to make an issue about intolerance of differing views, I suggest that instead of targeting the Dope (where critics may be Meanies, but woo of various kinds is tolerated), go after the alt med, parenting and autism boards where it is not only commonplace for virulent personal attacks on skeptics to be tolerated, but where having views which differ from orthodoxy are often grounds for banning.

You won't see that here.

[Marley23]

You are wasting your time.
I'm having my time wasted. ;)

You are the one who labels a lot of these beliefs and then says that they are not religious just because YOU are the one who is "not going to have a specific idea of what he or she believes."
I am not sure why we are spending time on this picayune issue, frankly. In the skepdic.com entry, the reference to spiritualism does not mean The National Spiritualist Association of Churches. It means spiritualism in general: the belief in life after death and communication through mediums. Some religious people may believe in that, and that may be a component of some religious beliefs, which appears to be the case for the spiritualist association. But "woo woo" does not refer to that religion specifically. It does not refer specifically to believers in any one religion or even to all religious believers. So it does not refer to a protected class, and even if it were harsh enough to be considered hateful, it would not be hate speech.

[Zoe]

Marley: I am not sure why we are spending time on this picayune issue, frankly. In the skepdic.com entry, the reference to spiritualism does not mean The National Spiritualist Association of Churches. It means spiritualism in general: the belief in life after death and communication through mediums.

Because you made the false claim that Spiritualism and New Ageism are not religions. Even your Skepdic.com does not say that they are NOT religions. They say that they are "beliefs." That does not mean "not a religion."

The skepdic's "spiritualism" and the "Spiritualism" I have been referring to are one and the same. They both have their origin in 1848. Read your own link, Marley.

The purpose of the SDMB is to fight ignorance.

Work on your stubborness, kiddo. Your made a good Doper, but you need to open yourself to learning when you are wrong. You don't know diddly about 19th Century religious sects.

ETA: You can always check to see if they are tax exempt.

[Sage Rat]

Seriously? You permit "woo" but obje3ct to "jerk" You really don't see a double standard there?
This is a website dedicated to fighting ignorance. Pointing out "woo" is our duty.

[Fear Itself]

The skepdic's "spiritualism" and the "Spiritualism" I have been referring to are one and the same. They both have their origin in 1848.That's nonsense. Do you believe there was no spiritualism before 1848, or that all spiritualists today are affiliated with The National Spiritualist Association of Churches? Both are patently false.

[Exapno Mapcase]

I also want a cite for what I consider to be the preposterous claim that New Age is a religion, a collection of religions, or a representative of religion.

My position is that there is no such thing as "New Age." It is anything people want to claim it to be or want to point to and dismiss. I won't deny that some of those claims include elements of religion, or better, spirituality. I will insist that many of those claims are not religion in any coherent sense of the term. I challenge you or anyone to find a coherent meaning in the wonderful hodge-podge that is the Wiki page on New Age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_age).

Spirituality is also not the same as spiritism or spiritualism, which I agree in a loud voice is not a single strand of belief dating from 1848, even if one tiny sect professes to say so. Why should the larger world accept that notion? There are groups who claim that their version of Catholicism is the only proper descendant of the original church and nobody outside their walls accepts that either.

If the rest of the world were bound by what proponents claim, then Peter Morris would by definition be right. No possible world could function in that way.

[Colibri]

What if you use it in reference to yourself?

Probably indicates you're self-hating.;)

[Liberal]

O.K.-what word would you prefer we use for those who reject science and embrace nonsense?How about a phrase:

"People who have little or no knowledge of the underpinning philosophies of science, who believe a conclusion they have heard but do not know how to derive it for themselves, and who fail to acknowledge that science is merely one epistemic system among many others — specifically, a system that relies on the tautology of empiricism and is tested by the unfalsifiable hypothesis of falsification."

Will that do? Or is it too hate-speechy?

[ivan astikov]

Erm... have you got another one? Something a bit shorter; I'll never remember all that!

[Liberal]

Erm... have you got another one? Something a bit shorter; I'll never remember all that!Yes, but I'll have to steal it from Sir Karl Popper. The term is pseudo-scientist (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html).

[Czarcasm]

How about a phrase:

"People who have little or no knowledge of the underpinning philosophies of science, who believe a conclusion they have heard but do not know how to derive it for themselves, and who fail to acknowledge that science is merely one epistemic system among many others — specifically, a system that relies on the tautology of empiricism and is tested by the unfalsifiable hypothesis of falsification."

Will that do? Or is it too hate-speechy?You want to replace belittling them with boring them to death?

[Czarcasm]

Yes, but I'll have to steal it from Sir Karl Popper. The term is pseudo-scientist (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html).This is better.

[Marley23]

Because you made the false claim that Spiritualism and New Ageism are not religions. Even your Skepdic.com does not say that they are NOT religions. They say that they are "beliefs." That does not mean "not a religion."
A religion involves multiple beliefs by definition, so yes, a belief is not the same thing as a religion. Not unless you want to claim that people who believe in UFO visitations are also a religion. The Skepdic cite and the term "woo woo" both include a general reference to spiritualist beliefs and not to the spiritualist association in particular as a religion.

Even your Skepdic.com does not say that they are NOT religions.
Why would the entry for "woo woo" go out of its way to say that spiritualism is not a religion? It's a cite for a term that does not refer to religion. It refers to beliefs, but not to religions in particular.

Here is the entry on spritualism. (http://www.skepdic.com/spiritul.html) It begins this way: Spiritism or spiritualism is the belief that the human personality survives death and can communicate with the living through a sensitive medium. Later on it includes this interesting comment: For many, spiritualism was "scientific proof" of life after death, which didn't involve any of the superstitious non-sense of religion. A spiritualist religion developed decades after the spiritualist fad started in 1848. There are mutiple spiritualist churches, and the one you've been mentioning (the NSAC) started in 1883.

The skepdic's "spiritualism" and the "Spiritualism" I have been referring to are one and the same.
Wrong, as cited above, since capital-S spiritualism as a religion came later.

Work on your stubborness, kiddo.
:rolleyes:

[Contrapuntal]

ETA: You can always check to see if they are tax exempt.Oh good. A religion is a religion because the government says it is. That just about says it all, doesn't it? Praise be to the IRS on high! Halleleujah!

[Zoe]

Marley, the NSAC was begun in 1883. If you read carefully, you will see that NSAC is not the church itself, but the organization of Spiritualist churches which has grown out of the events which happened on the same date at the same place as the ones described on skepdic. (http://www.nsac.org/history.htm). I gave you that link to show you that they were still going strong despite what you claimed.

Instead of just throwing wrong information up there, why don't you take the trouble to actually look at the history of the links I have provided? Do you not have any responsibility to be informed before you argue a point when I have provided sufficient links?

Notice that I do not support any of the beliefs. I'm just out here fighting your now wilful ignorance. At this point, I think if you ignore the links I have provided, you are not "playing fair." Your links and my links agree on the time and place for the beginning of Spiritualism and spiritualism. Your links call it a belief and mine call it a religion. I don't disagree with members that believe that they can communicate with the dead through mediums. That is their religion. You disagree that it is a religion despite the fact that there are churches.

You have decided on the basic of skepdic.com that they are not a religion. But skepdic.com doesn't say that they are not a religion.

What else am I to think other than that you are being willfully ignorant? What other option is there for you?

Contrapuntal, you have a point that it shouldn't be up to the government to decide what a religion is. I believe in the Sacred Cannabis and cannot partake as I would choose. But we do have a system that grants tax free status on the basis of religion.

And it is a bit better than the thought of Marley being the sole determiner without a sufficient education or an understanding of what the word skeptic means.

Is that the kind of fairness we would have to look forward to from atheists? (No, I really don't think so. It's just Marley being Marley.

[Colibri]

I'm just out here fighting your now wilful ignorance.

...

What else am I to think other than that you are being willfully ignorant? What other option is there for you?

....

And it is a bit better than the thought of Marley being the sole determiner without a sufficient education or an understanding of what the word skeptic means.

Is that the kind of fairness we would have to look forward to from atheists? (No, I really don't think so. It's just Marley being Marley.

[Moderator Note]

This kind of personal remarks are inappropriate for ATMB. I'm sure you make your points without these kinds of personal remarks. Let's refrain from this in rest of the discussion.

[Marley23]

Instead of just throwing wrong information up there, why don't you take the trouble to actually look at the history of the links I have provided?
Because it's not relevant to the point I was making, which is that "woo woo" doesn't refer to any particular religion. It's not relevant to any point that anyone made in this thread. The fact that a religion developed out of a specific spiritualist incident does not make spiritualism in general a religion. I understand that there are spiritualist religions, or at least organizations, which I did not know before. But this is pretty much like saying theism is a religion when it's one type of religion. The Skepdic article is not referring the NASC or any one spiritualist organization. They're making a general reference to belief in mediums as part of a list of beliefs that are sometimes clept "woo woo."

Notice that I do not support any of the beliefs.
I never said you did.

You have decided on the basic of skepdic.com that they are not a religion. But skepdic.com doesn't say that they are not a religion.
Why would it say they're not a religion? That's not the subject of the entry. The entry is about "woo woo" and it includes some ideas and beliefs that get called that name. One of those ideas is spiritualism. Referring back to where this tangent started:

Religion. Duh. They're making fun of people for what they believe.

That's not what "woo" means. It's a catchall term for New Agey spiritual-type stuff. (Cite from www.skepdic.com. (http://www.skepdic.com/woowoo.html))

BigT was saying "woo woo" could be hate speech because it ridicules religion by virtue of attacking people for what they believe. I was pointing out that this does not work because it's not a reference to a specific religion, it's a reference to types of beliefs - New Ageism, spiritualism, mysticism - that are grouped together. As the entry says: Sometimes woo-woo is used by skeptics as a synonym for pseudoscience, true-believer, or quackery. But mostly the term is used for its emotive content and is an emotive synonym for such terms as nonsense, irrational, nutter, nut, or crazy.

From there you accused me of "arbitrarily" leaving out New Ageism and Spiritualism as religions. You haven't posted any cites that New Ageism is a religion (rather than a loose collection without much particular connection, nevermind a unifying structure). Skepdic.com's entry for New Age (energy) (http://www.skepdic.com/energy.html) does not identify NE as a religion and strongly implies it [I]isn't a religion, the same way the entry for spiritualism implies that spiritualism is not a religion either. I understand there is a religion called spiritualism, but the term "woo woo" is not specifically refering to that religion, it is referring to a general belief in spirits and communication from beyond the grave that is held by some people who have never heard of the Fox sisters or the spiritualist church, and by others who are familiar with those things. The Skepdic entry is doing the same thing.

[Peter Morris]

This is a website dedicated to fighting ignorance. Pointing out "woo" is our duty.

No, pointing out IGNORANCE is our duty. Using insulting term to denigrate people is not likely to help the mission of this board. calling it "woo9" is a tactic used by troublemakers who seek to antagonise people. It has nothing to do with fighting ignorance. And in fact the ones who use it are the most ignorant bunch on the board.

[Czarcasm]

No, pointing out IGNORANCE is our duty. Using insulting term to denigrate people is not likely to help the mission of this board. calling it "woo9" is a tactic used by troublemakers who seek to antagonise people. It has nothing to do with fighting ignorance. And in fact the ones who use it are the most ignorant bunch on the board.How's about we meet you half way-you continue pointing out the ignorance, and we'll continue fighting it, o.k.?

[Peter Morris]

How's about we meet you half way-you continue pointing out the ignorance, and we'll continue fighting it, o.k.?

When the hell have YOU ever fought ignorance? Some people have peculiar ideas. YOU do nothing to change that. All YOU do is express your own personal hatred of those people. That nasty little question that you keep asking, is obviously an attempt to stir the shit. You are just out to upset people.

I wish you understood this point. Every one of your hate filled little comments only undermines the the ones who try to fight ignorance.

[Skammer]

You do realize that the "joke" only works because woowoo is widely understood to mean cunt?

No it isn't. The joke works because woo-woo was associated with the vagina in the joke.

The joke only works because woowoo isn't "widely understood" to mean anything in particular, which was the point of Skammer's remark.

No, the point of Skammer's remark is that he had only heard the word used for female genetalia.

I don't even see how your interpretation is possible.

Your post #75 was a clear misrepresentation of what Skammer said, as I have previously pointed out.

:rolleyes:
And that's your best example of me misrepresenting things?

Let's look at what he says.

I didn't even know what "woo-woo" referred to until I followed the link (I thought maybe it referred to a female body part ).

First point: female genitalia is sometimes called woo-woo. This is a fact. Here is one example of that (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/teen-talk/body-mind/anatomy/vulva-an-owners-manual-25172.htm).

Second point: Skammer says that he thought it might refer to a female body part until he followed the link.

It is utterly obvious, beyond any doubt at all that he had already seen the word used for female genitalia. Do you really think it was just a random guess on his part? Wow! I'm sorry I haven't checked back since my last post. I've never been name-checked so much in one thread before and I'm appreciative of the recognition that my joke "works."

Let me clarify that I had no idea, before clicking on the OP's link, what "woo-woo" meant. Vagina seemed like as good a guess as any, because 1) it sounded like a silly euphemism; and 2) was supposedly offensive hate speech.

In context, I recognized it as a characterization of spiritual/new age beliefs. I'm not consciously aware that I've ever actually seen that word used to mean vagina; it was just an (incorrect) guess.

I do think it should mean vagina, though. It's funnier that way.

[Giraffe]

A vagina is a "hoo-hoo" not a "woo-woo". Or just a "down there" if you don't want to be vulgar.

[Czarcasm]

A vagina is a "hoo-hoo" not a "woo-woo". Or just a "down there" if you don't want to be vulgar.I though Australia was "down there".

[CannyDan]

I though Australia was "down there".

Are Australians a protected group?

[Bosstone]

Are Australians a protected group?Oh heck yeah. You can only get to Australia through Indonesia, which makes it really hard for your opponents to break in. It's only two extra armies a turn, but that adds up.

[Skammer]

A vagina is a "hoo-hoo" not a "woo-woo". Or just a "down there" if you don't want to be vulgar. That's it! I'm sure I was confusing woo-woo with hoo-hoo. Woo hoo!

[Giraffe]

I though Australia was "down there".

Nah, most Australians are total cunts. ;)

[Exapno Mapcase]

Instead of just throwing wrong information up there, why don't you take the trouble to actually look at the history of the links I have provided? Do you not have any responsibility to be informed before you argue a point when I have provided sufficient links?

This is so wonderfully ironic that it should be served to people with anemia.

I've actually studied the history of spiritualism. There is vastly more to it than the tiny and utterly meaningless sliver your links give. As I said earlier. If you think that by finding this one link on the Internet you know anything at all about the larger subject, you are wrong. I would use stronger terms, but apparently we're no longer engaged in fighting ignorance and we're not supposed to upset people in the process.

You might want to look up Madam Helena P. Blavatsky, or Henry Steel Olcott, or the Theosophical Society. Or perhaps Rudolf Steiner and anthroposophy. Or any of 10,000 other names that a study of the subject might turn up. Names that will not be found at your link. There are many books to be found at Amazon just by searching on Spiritualism. I'm sure libraries will have them too.

But the NSAC is hardly Spiritualism in all its wooish glory. Please acknowledge that.

[Irishman]

Just because one group of people is derisive of another group of people for their beliefs does not make the use of a derisive label "hate speech".

The labels "woo" and "woo-woo" are not going to be considered hate speech on this board (stated by Staff).

The fact that any number of strange noises are sometimes used as euphamisms for various body parts or sexual acts does not, in itself, mean that every use of those same noises is intended to refer to those body parts or sex acts.

Any label for a group of people can be used derisively by someone who disagrees with that group of people. Just look at the people who use "liberal" or "conservative" as a swear word. That doesn't mean those words automatically become hate speech.

Belittling your opponents ideas by giving them silly labels is a common and well-worn practice. Some people feel the best way to influence opinions about a topic is to promote the attitude that to hold those ideas is to be silly, ignorant, stupid, or otherwise not reasonable. That may not go far to changing the minds of believers (and certainly isn't a means of rational conversion), but it does color the landscape of the debate. The point is not to change believers' minds, the point is to provoke the undecided to view those attitudes a particular way.

[Peter Morris]

The point is not to change believers' minds, the point is to provoke the undecided to view those attitudes a particular way.

Yeah, that's the point.

When the undecided see so-called skeptics using obnoxious terms, it provokes them to view dowsers and psychics with greater sympathy.

[Fear Itself]

When the undecided see so-called skeptics using obnoxious terms, it provokes them to view dowsers and psychics with greater sympathy.I don't see why you would come to that conclusion. Most people see woo-woo a mocking term, not the repugnant slur you seek to portray it as.

[Jackmannii]

How about a phrase:

"People who have little or no knowledge of the underpinning philosophies of science, who believe a conclusion they have heard but do not know how to derive it for themselves, and who fail to acknowledge that science is merely one epistemic system among many others — specifically, a system that relies on the tautology of empiricism and is tested by the unfalsifiable hypothesis of falsification."

Will that do?Or to summarize, "You can't measure my woo with your science" - a common dodge used to explain the failure of homeopathy, mind-reading etc. to stand up to rigorous scrutiny.When the undecided see so-called skeptics using obnoxious terms, it provokes them to view dowsers and psychics with greater sympathy."I was on the fence between credulousness and rationality, but since some of the rational people are Meanies, I'm going to suspend logical thought processes and dive right into the woo!"

Uh-huh.

Dang, in posting this I bet I've convinced at least two people to believe in alchemy.

[Zoe]

Exapno Mapcase: But the NSAC is hardly Spiritualism in all its wooish glory. Please acknowledge that.

That was never my point. And I am not well educated in Spiritualism in particular. As I have stated before, I am not a defender of Spiritualism. Did I post anything which contradicted what you added?

There was a lot more information on the history of Spiritualism at Marley's links and mine that I did not post. Very little was required to settle the issues that Marley claimed in error. I am not an expert in Spiritualism. If you are, then you know that Skepdic.com is referring to the same group.

I think Marley has confused the concept with people who say that they are "spiritual." That is the general term that is used by many Christians.

A skeptic keeps a critical and open mind. Who of you disagrees? Would a skeptic refer to someone else as a "woo woo"?

I do not denegrate science or the scientic method in any way. I depend upon it.

Jackmanii, what is the rest of that sentence? I don't disagree with what liberal is saying. When I could understand him, we disagreed on little and were friends. I'm just curious about the context, but if it is too much trouble, forget it.

[Jackmannii]

Jackmanii, what is the rest of that sentence? I don't disagree with what liberal is saying. When I could understand him, we disagreed on little and were friends. I'm just curious about the context, but if it is too much trouble, forget it.He was asked to suggest a phrase to describe those who reject science and embrace nonsense, and that's what he came up with (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12600596&postcount=179).

I merely put it in a succinct form. :)

[FloatyGimpy]

If I had to guess, I'd say that woo-woo is just an evolution of the sound ghosts make "woooOOOOOooooo". Then it became to mean anything airy-fairy.

[Zoe]

Thanks, Jackmannii. Sorry for the misspelling after all this time.

Good stuff and appropriate.

[Marley23]

I think Marley has confused the concept with people who say that they are "spiritual."
What on earth gave you that impression? I've defined spiritualism over and over in this thread. I linked to the Skepdic.com entry on the topic and I did read it before linking. I've quoted from it, I think. Spiritualism is the belief that consciousness survives after death, and the dead can communicate with the living through a medium. Sprituality can be pretty much anything other than traditional religious orthodoxy. It's nearly all things to all people. And it's not included in that definition of "woo woo," which spiritualism is.

You have cited the fact that there an organization for spiritualism. I get it. I didn't know that before. It appears to be doing about as well as phlogiston theory but it does exist. "Woo woo" does not refer just to members of that church. It refers to anyone who believes in communication with the dead through things like seances, Ouija boards, hauntings, or whatever else, which could reasonably be termed spiritualism without being part-of-the-Spiritualist-association-Spiritualism.

[Exapno Mapcase]

Would a skeptic refer to someone else as a "woo woo"?

Yes. It is exactly the skeptic community among whom woowoo is the standard term for the nonsense-begetters.

[BunnyTVS]

Given that Peter Morris has himself used the term "woo-woo" to describe people "who totally believe in the paranormal", in one of links posted prviously. I would like to know which definition of "woo-woo" he meant.

calling it "woo9" is a tactic used by troublemakers who seek to antagonise people.

Ah, OK. Asked and answered.

When the undecided see so-called skeptics using obnoxious terms, it provokes them to view dowsers and psychics with greater sympathy.

AH, Goddamnit! Double bluff all along! Ya know If I was psychic I would have seen that coming.

[Marley23]

If I had to guess, I'd say that woo-woo is just an evolution of the sound ghosts make "woooOOOOOooooo". Then it became to mean anything airy-fairy.
That's my guess, too.

[Jackmannii]

calling it "woo9" is a tactic used by troublemakers who seek to antagonise people.What the hell is "woo9"? Might make a good movie.

"WOO9 FROM OUTER SPAAAAACE"

Or maybe not.

[Zoe]

Originally Posted by Zoe
I think Marley has confused the concept with people who say that they are "spiritual."

What on earth gave you that impression? I've defined spiritualism over and over in this thread.

Exactly.

Moving right along...

Marley: Sprituality can be pretty much anything other than traditional religious orthodoxy.

Webster's strongly disagrees with you on most meanings of spirituality. Do you want to look it up for yourself or do I need to post it here?

It can be what you would call the "pretty much anything other than traditional religious orthodoxy" and it includes traditional religious orthodoxy" too.

I've been a Presbyterian, a member of Unity Church, an Anglican, and an Editorial Assistant for the United Methodist Publishing House. All except Unity are considered "mainline" churches and very, very traditional. All consider themselves "spiritual."

Why are you doing this, Marley? Sometimes I can see your friend's lips moving.

Mr. Mapcase, I can't really disagree with you that it is some of the standard terminology, but a true scot...er skeptic is supposed to remain critical but openminded.

[Fear Itself]

I've been a Presbyterian, a member of Unity Church, an Anglican, and an Editorial Assistant for the United Methodist Publishing House. All except Unity are considered "mainline" churches and very, very traditional. All consider themselves "spiritual."The "spiritual" aspects of mainline churches have nothing in common with "spiritualism". Apples and oranges, and you know it. Such pedantery does not advance your agrument.

[Zoe]

I agree with you for the most part, Fear Itself. I haven't confused the two.

I know of only one mainline Bishop who became involved with Spiritualism in 1967. I was an Episcopal Church (a member of the worldwide Anglican Communion) at the time) or I probably wouldn't remember it.) His name was James A. Pike.

He was the Bishop of California and was grieving for his son who had committed suicide the year before. In his despair, he turned to Spiritualism. A lot of people including leaders in the church called him a heretic. He resigned his position and wrote a book about his experiences called, I think, The Other Side. I may be confusing it with a Doors song.

Anyway, he was eventually lost in the desert in the Holy Land. I don't think his body was ever found, but I'm not certain.

Before all of this happened, he was known for his influence on the thinking of the time on "situational ethics." It is that part of his life that influenced my thinking and not his Spiritualism. I felt very sorry for him when his life took such a tragic direction.

Mainline churches, are, however, concerned with being spiritual. (See your Webster's)

[Zoe]

I don't think that any still posting on the differences in spiritual, and Spiritualism are being serious anymore. If you are, I suggest that you use Google, reread the relevant posts, ask an Administrator for clarification, hire a tutor, or get a better dick. I've always liked Webster's.

[Peter Morris]

Yes. It is exactly the skeptic community among whom woowoo is the standard term for the nonsense-begetters.

Not among the good ones it isn't. It's only the "gutter press" type that use the term. And the ones that do are usually full of nonsense themselves.

[ivan astikov]

Yes, if an argument is totally ridiculous, it should be quite easy to shoot it down without having to resort to denigrating the idea proposer's perceived personality defects.

[Marley23]

Why are you doing this, Marley? Sometimes I can see your friend's lips moving.
I think I'm done with this bullshit.

[Jackmannii]

Yes, if an argument is totally ridiculous, it should be quite easy to shoot it down without having to resort to denigrating the idea proposer's perceived personality defects.Why not do both? That way you fight ignorance, illustrate the pathology behind sloppy thinking and have fun while you're at it.

[Fear Itself]

Mainline churches, are, however, concerned with being spiritual. (See your Webster's)I guess I am just not sure what the relevance of pointing that out in a thread about spiritualism is. Sorry.

[Bosstone]

Yes, if an argument is totally ridiculous, it should be quite easy to shoot it down without having to resort to denigrating the idea proposer's perceived personality defects.But when you've thoroughly shot it down time after time after time after time and the same bullshit keeps popping back up, either from a new poster or even the same one, you start not to care so much about thoroughly shooting it down again and go to shorthand instead.

[ivan astikov]

Then, you either accept the person making the enquiry is a genuine seeker of knowledge and you give them a civil response, or, if you suspect they are just "baiting" you, you totally ignore them. If they are as dumb as you think they all are, they wouldn't even know you were taking the piss, so what's the point?

Oh, I forgot... it's fun to troll woo woo's, conspiracy nuts and the mentally ill.

[Czarcasm]

Then, you either accept the person making the enquiry is a genuine seeker of knowledge and you give them a civil response, or, if you suspect they are just "baiting" you, you totally ignore them. If they are as dumb as you think they all are, they wouldn't even know you were taking the piss, so what's the point?

Oh, I forgot... it's fun to troll woo woo's, conspiracy nuts and the mentally ill.If it is your point that they are mentally ill, is it also your point that, out of fairness, they shouldn't be allow to post here?

[ivan astikov]

I am not saying anyone is mentally ill specifically. And no, my point is nothing like the one you are suggesting.

[Czarcasm]

I am not saying anyone is mentally ill specifically. And no, my point is nothing like the one you are suggesting.But you are strongly implying that some of the people we might call "woo woos" are mentally ill. Should people you think might be mentally ill, the ones you think might not deserve being ridiculed, be allowed to post on this board?

[ivan astikov]

Why not, as long as they are not breaking any board rules. At least if they are posting on here, they are not out doing anything nutty.

[Czarcasm]

Why not, as long as they are not breaking any board rules. At least if they are posting on here, they are not out doing anything nutty.Should they be treated the same as any other poster?

[ivan astikov]

Why not? In what way are you presuming they'll act differently from "any other poster"? They'll put forth a proposition or a crazy theory, people can respond or not respond based on its merits.

[Czarcasm]

Why not? In what way are you presuming they'll act differently from "any other poster"? They'll put forth a proposition or a crazy theory, people can respond or not respond based on its merits.So we shouldn't refrain from mocking them when we feel they deserve it?

[ivan astikov]

Yes, you should, because it's like throwing bricks at a drowning puppy. A little mean-spirited, to say the least.

[Exapno Mapcase]

Why not? In what way are you presuming they'll act differently from "any other poster"? They'll put forth a proposition or a crazy theory, people can respond or not respond based on its merits.

In what way? Instead of acknowledging that they were wrong, they will continue to harp on the same point over and over no matter how many times and how many people demonstrate that it was nonsense in the first place.

Arguments are easy to shoot down. We've done it to every one of yours since you've begun posting. And yet your behavior has not changed an iota.

So is our behavior just as foolish as yours? No. Because we're not writing to change your unchangeable mind. We're writing to present the case to all the others who may be reading and whose opinions haven't yet hardened. Believe it or not, some people don't like having opinions that are so ridiculous that people point and laugh. Nonsensical cults, from spiritualism to Velikovsky to goat gland transplants, do fade away over time. Some stay longer - though UFOs have been dying in popularity in recent years - and new ones always spring up. On the whole, however, the record stands for nearly constant wins by the forces of rationalism. Even Creationists demand modern medicine.

Bosstone has it right. Attempt to use facts, science, and reason to shoot down the preposterous. If the rhetoric stays constant, ridicule is the next proper step.

The combo works. How many people are rushing to take your side?


ETA: You're comparing yourself to a drowning puppy? Holy Shit!

[Bosstone]

Yes, you should, because it's like throwing bricks at a drowning puppy. A little mean-spirited, to say the least.So are all regular posters drowning puppies?

[Irishman]

Peter Morris said:
When the undecided see so-called skeptics using obnoxious terms, it provokes them to view dowsers and psychics with greater sympathy.

*shrug* If you wish to advance that being dismissive and belittling is counterproductive, go right ahead. However, that has nothing to do with the question you posed in the OP. Or I should say, it is an entirely different point.

Heck, shouldn't you be happy the skeptics are so dismissive and belittling? According to you, that means people are less likely to be persuaded by them and more likely to believe crap like dowsing.

Fear Itself said:
I don't see why you would come to that conclusion. Most people see woo-woo a mocking term, not the repugnant slur you seek to portray it as.

Repugnant slur, mocking term, in either case it is derogatory. It's exactly the "wow, you are a great rollmodel for your side :rolleyes: " position. Oh look, we've just seen it here:

Exapno Mapcase said:
You've managed to embarrass and discredit the entire community of woo by your behavior in this thread. All I can say is, thank you from our side.

If the behavior of one can embarass and discredit the entire community, then that flows 2 ways, and the behavior of 1 skeptic can embarass and discredit the entire skeptic community. No?

Jackmannii said:
"I was on the fence between credulousness and rationality, but since some of the rational people are Meanies, I'm going to suspend logical thought processes and dive right into the woo!"

Uh-huh.

Take it up with Exapno Mapcase. Seriously, you don't think people think this way? I mean, if they were on the fence anyway, they weren't exactly shining beacons of rational thought. But yes, some people judge more by emotion than logic.

Zoe said:
There was a lot more information on the history of Spiritualism at Marley's links and mine that I did not post. Very little was required to settle the issues that Marley claimed in error.

What are you going on about? Your original complaint in post 99 was this:
Marley, I noticed that you have arbitrarily decided to exclude Spiritualism and New Ageism from the heading of Religion.

But Marley's original comment was this from post 4:
Marley23 said:
I agree with Colibri. Hate speech has a specific meaning and we pretty much stick to the legal definition where that's concerned. "Woo" is not even a hateful word, it's just derisive. People who believe in the stuff that gets called woo - call them believers, spiritualists, whatever you like - are also not a race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, or gender. That also goes for conspiracy theorist, CTer, Truther/Twoofer, birther, etc.

The terms "spiritualism" (small s) and "New-Agism" are broad terms not limited to religious groups or religions. Every bit of your complaint since this appears to be you trying to find a way to declare Marley wrong rather than take what he said in the context in which it was delivered.

Case in point:
Marley23 said:
Sprituality can be pretty much anything other than traditional religious orthodoxy. It's nearly all things to all people.

Zoe said:
Webster's strongly disagrees with you on most meanings of spirituality. Do you want to look it up for yourself or do I need to post it here?

It can be what you would call the "pretty much anything other than traditional religious orthodoxy" and it includes traditional religious orthodoxy" too.

While I can't say for certain what was on Marley's mind, I am reasonably sure he had in mind the refrain, "I'm not religious, I'm spiritual," the people trying to separate themselves from "organized religion". In that context, the people using the word are trying to distance the internal seeking after spiritual truth from the external structure of belief and hierarchy of religious orthodoxy. In that context, it certainly makes sense to conclude that "spirituality can be pretty much anything other than traditional religious orthodoxy".

I will grant that you have a valid point that spirituality is also used by mainstream religious believers to describe their own personal experience and belief, so that limited case is not the full expression of "spirituality". But really this is silly, because you are the one who brought spirituality into the discussion in the first place, when the original topic was not even spiritualism or Spiritualism, but the wide swathe of ideas that fall under the general label of "woo". Which includes believe in visitation by ghosts and the ability of mediums to contact them (spiritualism), but also includes elements of Eastern religions (chi, meridians, etc), and general non-scientific concepts (ESP, telekinesis, dowsing, alien abductions, alien cattle mutilations, mystical ancient societies like Atlantis, the Bermuda Triangle as a vortex of mystical ship and aircraft disappearances, etc). I will grant that Marley's original list of what constitutes woo was extremely truncated. That does not change the fact that calling believers in any of these things "woo woo" does not rise to the level of being hate speech as a legal concept. And that was his point, the idea brought up by the OP and the idea that he was addressing.


Zoe said:
Why are you doing this, Marley? Sometimes I can see your friend's lips moving.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? :confused:

Zoe said:
If you are, I suggest that you use Google, reread the relevant posts, ask an Administrator for clarification, hire a tutor, or get a better dick.

Let's leave my penis out of this! ;):D

[Marley23]

While I can't say for certain what was on Marley's mind, I am reasonably sure he had in mind the refrain, "I'm not religious, I'm spiritual," the people trying to separate themselves from "organized religion".
That's correct. It's true there are other meanings of spiritual. The 'I'm not religious, I'm spiritual' version is the one I am most used to hearing. There are other definitions that are equally valid. None of them have anything to do with spiritualism. At no time did I confuse spirituality with spiritualism or Spiritualism.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? :confused:
I'm stumped by that one, too.

Let's leave my penis out of this! ;):D
I couldn't agree more.

[Gary "Wombat" Robson]

Returning to the OP for a moment (what a concept!), I do not feel that the term "woo-woo" is hate speech. That, of course, is my personal opinion, not an official position of the SDMB...

I recognize that different people use the word differently. Perhaps some of them mean it as hate speech. I certainly don't. I use the term "woo-woo" for junk science; for things that people believe even when faced with direct proof that they are wrong.

Things like the existence of ghosts can't be disproven any more than the existence of God can be disproven. I don't believe in ghosts. I've never seen proof a ghost exists. Credulous people will take any strange noise or odd air current in the middle of the night and call it a ghost. I call the ghosts themselves "woo-woo," because I don't believe they exist. I don't call the people who believe in them "woo-woo," though, because I think they're mostly just misled.

Of course, things like dowsing, astrology, and crystal power have been shot down repeatedly, and people choose to ignore the proof and continue to believe them. That's the kind of person I call "woo-woo." People like that are intentionally promoting the kind of ignorance that the SDMB was created to fight.

In the first place, I am and have always been a sceptic.What?!? You and I have had some exchanges in the past, Peter, and I just can't see that word applied to you--even if you spell it right.

A skeptic says, "I won't believe that until you prove it."
You say, "I won't disbelieve that until you disprove it."

You folks can call me a woowoo if you like, but I believe this thread is going to take a drastic turn, and will end with Fenris, Marley and Peter skipping through a field of daisies, hand in hand.Wow. What an image.

[Peter Morris]

A skeptic says, "I won't believe that until you prove it."
You say, "I won't disbelieve that until you disprove it." .

That has no connection with reality. When have I ever said anything like that? Give examples. Put up or shut up.

[Jackmannii]

Seriously, you don't think people think this way (adopting a view because someone on the other side makes rude remarks)? I mean, if they were on the fence anyway, they weren't exactly shining beacons of rational thought. But yes, some people judge more by emotion than logic.I think it's far, far more likely that people who claim to be on the fence but allegedly take a stand based on the opposition's perceived nastiness, are actually concern trolls who in reality have always embraced woo. These are people who'll ignore ten well-reasoned, civil responses to zoom in on the one person whose remarks include perceived insults. Their apparent hope in concern trolling is that you'll soften your position and compromise with woo, or maybe just stop sending well-aimed rebuttals their way.

As a prime example, there's a forum I participate in on another board in which woo often makes an appearance. Despite being a target of personal attacks (wooists frequently view skepticism about their ideas as an invitation to respond with nastiness), I maintain a civil demeanor in that forum, yet every once in awhile some opponent will try to warn me that my contributions are backfiring and alienating those I hope to convince.
You'd think they'd be delighted at that prospect - but no, apparently they're just issuing these warnings out of concern for me. :dubious:

A dose of ridicule directed at a bad idea is often part of an effective counter to it.

[Sailboat]

Don't worry, spirit forces have appeared before me and told me it's okay to use the term "woo-woo."

What, you don't believe me?

[Peter Morris]

A skeptic says, "I won't believe that until you prove it."
You say, "I won't disbelieve that until you disprove it."

A somewhat more accurate version:

I say "I don't believe you, but I'd be interested to see you demonstrate your claim, and if you do so I'll start believing you."

The less good skeptics say "I know that you are wrong, I don't need to see any demonstration, there's nothing that will convince me.-"

[Jackmannii]

A somewhat more accurate version:

I say "I don't believe you, but I'd be interested to see you demonstrate your claim, and if you do so I'll start believing you."

The less good skeptics say "I know that you are wrong, I don't need to see any demonstration, there's nothing that will convince me.-"I don't recall seeing board skeptics on matters of science/alleged paranormal phenomena saying there was no evidence that would ever convince them that they were wrong.

Good reproducible evidence would convince virtually anyone, including hardened, mean, anti-woo slinging skeptics.

So I don't believe you Peter, but if you can demonstrate your claim that there's a class of "less good skeptics" on the Dope that are unwilling to be convinced by good evidence, I'll start believing you. :)

[Peter Morris]

Yeah, well, I could do so. But I know from long experience that the less good skeptics would reject the evidence.

[Revenant Threshold]

So it's the mark of a less good skeptic to hold a view and reject without attempts to see and understand any alternatives, but acceptable to hold a view and reject without attempts to see and understand any alternatives?

Honestly, "I know that you are wrong, I don't need to see any demonstrations, there's nothing that will convince me" in terms of already having made up one's mind with uninterest and even disdain for potential alternatives seems pretty equivalent to "But I know from long experience that the less good skeptics would reject the evidence". I'm not sure you can say that to dimiss out of hand is a poor mark against you, and then dismiss out of hand. If you're supposed to keep an open mind, you're supposed to keep and open mind, surely?

[Peter Morris]

No, it's just that I have long experience of dealing with the less good skeptics, And they always accept their faith above evidence.

[Revenant Threshold]

I don't see the difference. You're saying, as I understand it, that they are less good skeptics because they have basically already made up their minds, and they turn up their nose at any evidence that might show them to be wrong. They believe, without even looking at what this evidence might be, they their opponents are wrong, simply for being who they are and believing what they do; they are so certain they simply don't care about evidence to the contrary.

That seems to be a pretty good summary of your own opinion in this particular case. You've already made up your mind, you're turning up your nose at evidence, you believe they will act one way, because of who they are and what they believe, and you won't look at potential evidence to the contrary. They always act this way; why do you need to bother yourself with evidence this time around?

Look at it this way; the argument you use there has been used against you, in this very thread. That their opinion of you and their experience of you allows them to make such assumptions about you and your arguments. Now, don't get me wrong, i'm not agreeing with them - but it seems to me that you cannot crusade for open-mindedness, a fair and reasonable response to new evidence, a state of mind that says "I am willing to look at evidence that might prove me wrong", and then say "they always accept their faith above evidence". You can't say "Don't assume things about me or my points, don't let your beliefs go untested. Please, judge what I say on its own merits, not your biases", and then (to paraphrase) "Oh, those types always act this way. I don't need to see new evidence".

[Zoe]

It seems to me that I have met few skeptics at SDMB. How often to you see posts from someone with "suspended judgment"?

Dio is the opposite of a skeptic. Maybe Gary is as close as we will get. I would have to go back and read Irishman's posts more carefully. I know that he makes every effort to be fair and he's very rational. Mr. Mapcase I am biased about. I never trust writers to be skeptics. (Watch him tell me that he writes for JAMA or something similar.) Czarcasm, you are disqualified for one of the same reasons as Mr. Mapcase.

{b]Mr. Mapcase[/b], I would be on a first name basis with you, but soon, I might call you by your first initial as I sometimes do. Then it would be "Ah, Sweet Mr. E. of life, etc." and that's a horrible song. So let's just leave it alone. But thank you for the loan of the uh Webster's. It settled everything nicely.

Marley, thank you for your responses. BTW, I have used "kiddo" with just about everyone I know for years and years including a 90 year old buddy. I was called that as a child by one of my favorite adults and took a liking to it. I call my grown granchildren that. It was not intended as a put down. Friends also call me "kiddo." It is not uncommon where I live, but not an everyday nickname either. Sorry if it offended.

[ivan astikov]

A dose of ridicule directed at a bad idea is often part of an effective counter to it.

Funny that. When I suggested ridiculing niqabs, I was told it was rude and insensitive.

[Peter Morris]

That seems to be a pretty good summary of your own opinion in this particular case. You've already made up your mind, you're turning up your nose at evidence,

In what way? Seriously, what evidence have I rejected? My critics have presented no evidence, just made absurd claims that contradict the facts.

I mean just look at the woo-woo=vagina discussion. I have presented actual evidence to support my statement. The word woo-woo does mean female genitals (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/teen-talk/body-mind/anatomy/vulva-an-owners-manual-25172.htm). There's plenty of other cites supporting this. My opponents simply ignore the evidence. All they do is claim they're right, with NO evidence at all to support their position.

And that is the way it usually happens. They have faith, and their faith outweighs the evidence.


you believe they will act one way, because of who they are and what they believe, and you won't look at potential evidence to the contrary. They always act this way; why do you need to bother yourself with evidence this time around?

It's not that I believe they will act this way. It's that they HAVE acted this way.



You can't say ... "Oh, those types always act this way. I don't need to see new evidence".

I haven't said that. I'm always willing to look at evidence.

What I said was that they are refusing to look at evidence and they always act this way.

[Zoe]

I suppose that whoever made that decision did not want the SDMB to appear to be culturally insensitive to "other" cultures.

It really often depends, I think, on the moderator making the decision at the time. I agree that it is probably insensitive to ridicule any culture's clothing. But I also think that it is insensitive to call someone "white trash." Others think that it is a racial slur. Some say that it doesn't go that far.

It just isn't easy to decide those things. But "insensitive" -- yes, it is that. But I don't know that there are rules here against insensitivity. Just harassment and hate speech.

I'm glad I'm not a mod.

[ivan astikov]

If someone dresses as a pink penguin wearing a tutu to go to work, if I see them, I am going to laugh out loud. If they then tell me they dress that way because the god they worship requires it, I am going to break down in hysterics. Sorry, that's just the way I roll.