# 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:** 11
**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 21, 2010, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/201 "2010-06-21T22:19:33Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2010, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/202 "2010-06-21T22:36:25Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2010, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/203 "2010-06-21T22:47:40Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > 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. > [@Peter Morris](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2010, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/204 "2010-06-21T23:38:59Z")
> [@](#): > > **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](http://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. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2010, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/205 "2010-06-21T23:43:23Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > **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. 🙂 ---
**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 21, 2010, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/206 "2010-06-21T23:48:15Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2010, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/207 "2010-06-21T23:55:04Z")
Thanks, **Jackman** n **ii**. Sorry for the misspelling after all this time. Good stuff and appropriate. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2010, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/208 "2010-06-22T00:07:52Z")
> [@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. I linked to the [Skepdic.com](http://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 spiritual_ism_ 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. ---
**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 22, 2010, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/209 "2010-06-22T00:50:32Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![BunnyTVS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@BunnyTVS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BunnyTVS)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2010, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/210 "2010-06-22T01:18:47Z")
> [@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. > [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > calling it “woo9” is a tactic used by troublemakers who seek to antagonise people. Ah, OK. Asked and answered. > [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2010, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/211 "2010-06-22T01:24:19Z")
> [@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. That’s my guess, too. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2010, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/212 "2010-06-22T01:37:19Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2010, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/213 "2010-06-22T03:01:32Z")
> [@](#): > > **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.** ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2010, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/214 "2010-06-22T04:06:22Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2010, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/215 "2010-06-22T06:36:48Z")
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** ) ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2010, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/216 "2010-06-22T06:46:57Z")
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**. ---
**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 22, 2010, 9:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/217 "2010-06-22T09:05:30Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > 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. ---
**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 22, 2010, 9:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/218 "2010-06-22T09:14:18Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2010, 11:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/219 "2010-06-22T11:15:42Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > Why are you doing this, **Marley?** Sometimes I can see your friend’s lips moving. I think I’m done with this bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2010, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/220 "2010-06-22T13:25:24Z")
> [@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. Why not do both? That way you fight ignorance, illustrate the pathology behind sloppy thinking and have fun while you’re at it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714.md?page=12)