# 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:** 12
**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, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/221 "2010-06-22T13:30:11Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2010, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/222 "2010-06-22T14:50:43Z")
> [@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. 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. ---
**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, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/223 "2010-06-22T15:01:32Z")
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. ---
**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 22, 2010, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/224 "2010-06-22T15:06:09Z")
> [@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. 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? ---
**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, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/225 "2010-06-22T15:10:28Z")
I am not saying anyone is mentally ill specifically. And no, my point is nothing like the one you are suggesting. ---
**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 22, 2010, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/226 "2010-06-22T15:17:56Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > 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? ---
**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, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/227 "2010-06-22T15:19:42Z")
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. ---
**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 22, 2010, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/228 "2010-06-22T15:20:40Z")
> [@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. Should they be treated the same as any other poster? ---
**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, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/229 "2010-06-22T15:23:23Z")
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. ---
**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 22, 2010, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/230 "2010-06-22T15:31:30Z")
> [@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. So we shouldn’t refrain from mocking them when we feel they deserve it? ---
**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, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/231 "2010-06-22T15:36:25Z")
Yes, you should, because it’s like throwing bricks at a drowning puppy. A little mean-spirited, to say the least. ---
**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, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/232 "2010-06-22T15:40:05Z")
> [@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. 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! ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2010, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/233 "2010-06-22T15:43:00Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2010, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/234 "2010-06-22T16:37:59Z")
**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? 😕 **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! ;)😃 ---
**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, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/235 "2010-06-22T17:45:03Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > 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? 😕 I’m stumped by that one, too. > [@](#): > > Let’s leave my penis out of this! ;)😃 I couldn’t agree more. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2010, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/236 "2010-06-22T19:30:18Z")
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. > [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > 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.” > [@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. Wow. What an image. ---
**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, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/237 "2010-06-22T20:46:16Z")
[quote=“Gary “Wombat” Robson, post:236, topic:543714”] A skeptic says, “I won’t believe that until you prove it.” You say, “I won’t disbelieve that until you disprove it.” . [/QUOTE] That has no connection with reality. When have I ever said anything like that? Give examples. Put up or shut up. ---
**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, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/238 "2010-06-22T21:21:35Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2010, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/239 "2010-06-22T22:51:57Z")
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? ---
**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, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/240 "2010-06-22T22:57:40Z")
[quote=“Gary “Wombat” Robson, post:236, topic:543714”] A skeptic says, “I won’t believe that until you prove it.” You say, “I won’t disbelieve that until you disprove it.” [/QUOTE] 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.-” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714.md?page=13)