# Is this hate speech? **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [June 18, 2010, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714 "2010-06-18T21:35:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2010, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/1 "2010-06-18T21:35:42Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2010, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/2 "2010-06-18T21:38:05Z")
You should try being called a Conspiracy Theorist. You wouldn’t believe how much venom and contempt lies behind those 2 innocuous words. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2010, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/3 "2010-06-18T21:44:48Z")
No, it’s not hate speech. It’s somewhat dismissive, but it’s not even remotely hate speech. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2010, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/4 "2010-06-18T21:48:27Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2010, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/5 "2010-06-18T21:51:06Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2010, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/6 "2010-06-18T21:55:01Z")
I’m curious which category of “race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, or gender” woo-woo violates. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2010, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/7 "2010-06-18T22:00:43Z")
> [@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. 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? ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2010, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/8 "2010-06-18T22:01:27Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2010, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/9 "2010-06-18T22:02:45Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![FloatyGimpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/floatygimpy/32/7750_2.png) [@FloatyGimpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FloatyGimpy)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2010, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/10 "2010-06-18T22:02:45Z")
> [@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. I think that from now on, all vaginas must now be referred to as “woo-woo’s” ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2010, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/11 "2010-06-18T22:03:05Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2010, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/12 "2010-06-18T22:05:37Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2010, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/13 "2010-06-18T22:12:38Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2010, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/14 "2010-06-18T22:14:58Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > 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. > [@Marley23](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2010, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/15 "2010-06-18T22:15:41Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2010, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/16 "2010-06-18T22:19:33Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > 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.” ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2010, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/17 "2010-06-18T22:19:46Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2010, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/18 "2010-06-18T22:23:54Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > 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. > [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2010, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/19 "2010-06-18T22:26:43Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > O.K.-what word _would_ you prefer we use for those who reject science and embrace nonsense? Catholics? ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2010, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/20 "2010-06-18T22:37:08Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > 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. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714.md?page=2)