I guess I am just not sure what the relevance of pointing that out in a thread about spiritualism is. Sorry.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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?
Yes, you should, because it’s like throwing bricks at a drowning puppy. A little mean-spirited, to say the least.
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!
So are all regular posters drowning puppies?
Peter Morris said:
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:
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:
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:
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:
What are you going on about? Your original complaint in post 99 was this:
But Marley’s original comment was this from post 4:
Marley23 said:
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:
Zoe said:
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:
What the hell is that supposed to mean? 
Zoe said:
Let’s leave my penis out of this! ;)
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.
I’m stumped by that one, too.
I couldn’t agree more.
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.
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.”
Wow. What an image.
That has no connection with reality. When have I ever said anything like that? Give examples. Put up or shut up.
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.
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?
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.-”