I’ve read a huge number of incredibly stupid threads here in my time. This is quite possibly the worst.
Although, come to think of it, it does shed new light on that old classic “WOO! I am masturbating like a motherfuck!”
If you can invent a comeback that doesn’t break the rules on personal insults, that would be allowed.
Which is why your cites are a joke from a Mel Brooks movie, 26 votes on Urban Dictionary, and your own misunderstanding of Skammer’s post.
He starts to say womb and says “woo woo” instead. I love Mel Brooks but this argument is completely stupid.
If that’s how you want to spend your evening, knock yourself out. It would still not prove what you are insisting it does.
Okay, then moderators. Marley23, or Collibri, or anyone. Look back at post #18. Marley made the distinction between “a hypothetical insult of one person” while “Diogenes made a general statement.”
In the above quoted post, Exapno Mapcase made an insult directed at me personally. He is accusing ME of being a woo. Apart from being totally untrue, it breaks Marley’s rule against insults directed at a single person.
So, are you going to do anything about it, moderators, or will you chyange your minds again, as you have done several times this thread?
I have, by the way, been on the receiving end of this sort of crap many times in the past. And it always feels like hate speech to me.
Maybe the ATMB mods will feel differently but I don’t think he’s done anything that is verboten here. He is talking about your posts in this thread, and commenting on someone else’s posts is allowed. And I’ve said that “woo” is not a personal insult whether it is used to describe a person or a belief.
As noted by many people in this thread, I don’t think you understand what hate speech is. It is not hate speech just because they are saying things you don’t like or because they are being rude.
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.
I’ve produced many other cites. But you ignore them all.
Try this one.
So, what’s a vulva? The vulva is the whole female genital “package” — labia, clitoris, vagina, and urethral openings. This part of our anatomy gets called lots of funny names — coochie, woo-woo, “down there,” and it’s sometimes confused with the vagina — the stretchable passage that connects a woman’s outer sex organs with the cervix and uterus.
Your cites are terrible. I don’t know what else to say about them. You’re using an Urban Dictionary cite with a negative rating, meaning most of the voters do not agree it means vagina.
Your comparison fails - miserably - because these two meanings of “woo woo” are not related to each other. Dick was slang for penis and then became a word for an obnoxious person because it already meant penis. (By the way, here is a Straight Dope staff report on “Dick.”) There is no connection between “woo woo” as a term for spiritual nonsense and vagina. Maybe I’m wrong and you’ve been citing Urban Dictionary while waiting to pull out your trump card, which is a cite showing that skeptics started using “woo woo” on spiritualists because it means vagina. But I suspect you don’t have that cite because it is not the case. Mel Brooks was not making a crude reference to skeptics in High Anxiety, and Diogenes the Cynic was not calling believers in magick - or their beliefs - vaginas.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7697044#post7697044
What Peter Morris has said in this thread is drivel. I will continue to insist that Peter Morris himself is unquestionably woowoo, using solely the definition provided in his own link, “A person who looks good and does something spectacular.”
Look–you guys know you’re never going to convince Pete, don’t you? IIRC, he’s the guy who spent years harassing Randi because he (Pete) misread/misinterpreted something Randi wrote and as such decided that this meant he’d won Randi’s Million Dollar Challenge as a result. Here, here, here and here on Randi’s board as well (he’s got a crapload of posts there too–doing the same thing), just to demonstrate a very few.
I’m not trying to stifle debate, just letting people know that they will never, ever, ever convince Pete no matter what. Have fun poking him with sticks, but don’t get stressed out when he doesn’t budge regardless of facts.
That actually contradicts what you said earlier.
Just as a reminder:
**Bosstone **(post #14) *I would infer that calling a group “woowoos” is allowable. Calling you, Peter Morris, a woowoo, would not be.
*
**Marley23 **(pot#18) *Like Bosstone says, you used one as a hypothetical insult of one person. Diogenes made a general statement. *
So, it was Bosstone (not a mod) who said that calling me a woowoo would not be allowable. And you, who ARE a mod, explicitly agreed with him. Right there, you agreed that calling me, specifically, a woowoo would not be allowable.
So, someone calls me a woo, and instead of issuing a warning, you allow it. Right there is a contradiction. You have repeatedly contradicted yourself throughout the thread.
The fundamental problem is that insulting someone by calling them a woowoo doe3s break the rules of the board. You want to let them get away with it, and tie yourself up in knots making excuses for them.
Frankly I don’t care if you warn Mapcase or not. I knew you wouldn’t do so. I’m just pointing out yet another contradiction in your behaviour.
And I suppose you’ll also let Fenris get away with his jerkish behaviour, and his deliberate misrepresentation too.
cite?
The origin of woowoo as a term for supernatural is unknown. Claiming that it comes from theramin music is only a guess, with no facts to back it up. I can guess that it comes from woowoo meaning vagina, and my guess has as much authority as yours does.
again, cite?
The staff report makes no mention of the obnoxious person usage of dick. I say thjat use of dick as obnoxious person actually derives from dick meaning policeman.
What rule did Fenris break just now, Peter Morris?
I did not say that. I agreed with him on one point, which was that you had used the terms in different ways, with sKKKeptic directed at an individual and other words directed at groups of people.
Peter, if we were to start issuing warnings for “deliberate misrepresentation” in this thread, you would have at least ten by now.
And the only reason you’re not receiving a warning for trolling is that, based on your previous behavior, I really can’t rule out the possibility that you might actually believe some of the nonsense you’re coming out with.
You can’t seriously expect us to start warning people for using a word because you think your guess about its meaning is equally valid to someone else’s. You have not proved that “woo woo” is equivalent to dick because it’s a sexual slang-based insult. They’re not similar as far as I can tell, and I don’t see any reason to treat them like they are- certainly not based on your own evaluation of a guess. I might choose to give a mod note for using “woo woo” to refer to individuals in GD if I think it’s going to take a conversation off track, but I don’t see it as an insult that deserves a warning. And I usually don’t give warnings in this forum because I’m not one of the ATMB mods.
I disagreed with him. That’s a banning offense–we all know that Marley.
But since we both know that I got those pics of you with the squirrel, the waffle iron and the marshmallow schnapps, I think you can be “trusted” to let me ‘get away with it’. If you know what’s good for you.
And I think you do.
That squirrel was legal, man. Check under the tail.
As an aside, the only thing that I wrote that could possibly be considered a “deliberate misrepresentation” is that Pete “misread/misinterpreted something Randi wrote” as opposed agreeing with Pete’s…um…peculiar point of view about that situation.
And since Pete’s stance is that “woowoo” means “vagina” because someone on the internet said it somewhere once or twice, I’m untouchable by his own rules: I can find thousands of posts disagreeing with Pete or yelling at Pete or trying to help Pete understand that he’s just completely wrong, but I can’t find a single person online who agrees with Pete*. So the entire internet is my cite and I’m unassailable.
*Note–finding a single instance of someone on Pete’s side doesn’t matter by Pete’s rules. Dissenting views, even a majority of them, apparently don’t change the “Someone on the internet said it” standard.
In the first place, he has broken the rule “don’t be a jerk.” by resurrecting an old argument. It is deliberately inflammatory, trying to get me involved in anargument about Randi.
In the second place, he has broken the following rule
"You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use the SDMB to post any material that you know or should know is false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, threatening, invasive of a person’s privacy, or in violation of U.S. law. "
He has deliberately posted false, defamatory and inaccurate information. (I also consider it hateful and harassing, but you might disagree) to wit, he claims that I “misread/misinterpreted something Randi wrote”
The reality is that Randi makes up a lot of stories in which he has beaten fake psychics. They are all works of fiction, he’s far to stupid to actua lly do it. I took a story Randi told, and agreed to take the test exactly as Randi described, to the letter. Randi backed off, because he knew he would lose, if he actually went through with it.
There was no misreading/ misinterpretation. I quoted Randi’s exact words, and dared him to go through with them. Fenris knows this, but he chooses to lie about it.
The problem is that people such as Fenris know that Randi is a liar, and support him anyway, and hate me for exposing him.
Exactly. And you agreed that “woowoo” directed against one individual is not allowable. And now you backtrack, and refuse to follow through. You tie yourself up[ in knots making excuses for bad behaviour.
No, it’s not hate speech. Contempt for stupid beliefs is not hate speech.
Cite?
Go ahead, find ONE deliberate misrepresentation I have made.