# 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:** 9
**Author:** ![LurkMeister](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/3da27b/32.png) [@LurkMeister](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LurkMeister)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2010, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/161 "2010-06-20T15:02:27Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > :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. ---
**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 20, 2010, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/162 "2010-06-20T18:36:31Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > Would “homo” qualify as hate speech? It could, depending on context. ---
**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 20, 2010, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/163 "2010-06-20T18:39:08Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2010, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/164 "2010-06-20T18:49:52Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > Would “homo” qualify as hate speech? Lactose intolerant? ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2010, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/165 "2010-06-20T18:59:39Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > 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. ---
**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 20, 2010, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/166 "2010-06-20T20:58:26Z")
**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!!”. ---
**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 20, 2010, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/167 "2010-06-20T21:30:57Z")
> [@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!!”. [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. ---
**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 20, 2010, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/168 "2010-06-20T21:43:06Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > [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!”. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2010, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/169 "2010-06-20T23:42:08Z")
> [@](#): > > **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. ---
**Author:** ![BunnyTVS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@BunnyTVS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BunnyTVS)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2010, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/170 "2010-06-21T01:38:35Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2010, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/171 "2010-06-21T02:46:17Z")
What if you use it in reference to yourself? > [@Random Mafia](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-mafia/532942/1523): > > 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** ---
**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, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/172 "2010-06-21T03:09:38Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2010, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/173 "2010-06-21T03:10:25Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > 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](http://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. ---
**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, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/174 "2010-06-21T03:54:16Z")
> [@](#): > > **Marley** : I am not sure why we are spending time on this picayune issue, frankly. In the [skepdic.com](http://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](http://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. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2010, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/175 "2010-06-21T04:04:58Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > 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. ---
**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, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/176 "2010-06-21T04:08:59Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > 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. ---
**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 21, 2010, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/177 "2010-06-21T04:45:51Z")
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. ---
**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 21, 2010, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/178 "2010-06-21T05:51:54Z")
> [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > What if you use it in reference to yourself? Probably indicates you’re self-hating.😉 ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2010, 11:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/179 "2010-06-21T11:27:23Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > 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? ---
**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 21, 2010, 11:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714/180 "2010-06-21T11:32:58Z")
Erm… have you got another one? Something a bit shorter; I’ll never remember all that! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-hate-speech/543714.md?page=10)