I am a member of a topic-speciific website relating to animal care on which people are, in general very well educated, and sensible about the topic. Idiots with idiot/dangerous ideas are usually shut down quickly, proper veterinary care is highly stressed, etc. There is solid moderation, and the forum is relentlessly on topic.
I recently noted some posters posting on a rather woo-woo topic in a very earnest tone. Although the woo-woo activity is not in any way harmful to the animal, it also has no effectiveness at all. Let’s say, it was reading the animal’s horoscope daily. Some posters became upset about the potential overuse of the procedure. As in, “no, read it’s horoscope AT MOST once a week! Otherwise it could harm it emotionally!”
Do you jump in and explain briefly that horoscopes cannot be overused since they have no predictive value? Or is that a dick move in the context?
Again, remember, there is NO danger to the animal, and the poster is not suggesting the horoscopes in lieu of proper veterinary care, feeding, etc.
“Woo-woo” is a catch-all term used by skeptics to refer to person or subjects which deal with the supernatural, the paranormal, psychics, ghosts, UFO’s etc. I believe the words are intended to mimic a “spooky music” sound.
To the OP: I am almost uncontrollably compelled to call out woo-woos just about anywhere and anywhere. I usually won’t do it with religion, but let somebody mention a ghost or a pet psychic and I’m all over it. That stuff drives me nuts. I don’t even really know why it does, it just does.
Woo-woo (or more conveniently, woo) is also a catch-all term for alternative health care goofiness, especially that which is based on philosophical/religious/otherworldly grounds.
I do challenge woo on another website, specifically one that has an herbalism forum (herbalism is highly infested with woo). I avoid personal remarks, though that doesn’t stop the woo-ful from mis-firing back with insults, claims that I am an “A.M.A. infiltrator” and other nonsense.
I generally ignore woo that is relatively harmless (i.e. doesn’t claim to treat cancer or other life-threatening ailments). If someone wants to believe that they’d better not walk little Bandit on odd-numbered streets in December because the stars say it’s unwise, I wouldn’t challenge it. Save your ammo for the dolts who want to substitute woo for evidence-based veterinary care.
For me it depends on what kind of forum it is. If it’s in any way dedicated to rational thought or fighting ignorance and the woo is pertinent to the conversation then I think it’s all fair game. If it’s on a site that exists for another reason and subject I would let it go and not comment unless it was aimed at me personally. I don’t really care if some of the people on a garden site are chanting over their seedlings to get them to grow as long as they water them too. It’s silly but harmless.
What is it about animal specific sites that brings out the fruitcake in people? I used to participate in a forum where I was accused of being a witch for giving my dog probiotics (she has IBS and it helps her more than I could even tell you) per vet’s advice. And forget about even discussing dog food preference in a rational and reasonable way.
My cat came and got me and showed me this thread so I could post for her. She’s not happy. She’s making a cat butt face right now. Sorry wrong end. Honestly I had no idea this thread was here until kitty showed me.
I usually challenge it when it’s in my area of expertise, or where I know a lot about the subject. There’s nothing worse than jumping in and being unable to properly argue against an idiot when you only have a vague knowledge of the field (climate change and evolution comes to mind)—doing so usually lends their argument some sort of credibility.
