What is "woo"
Replies
-
I've only heard adults use the words "derp" and "broscience." And "woo", for that matter.
I don't hang out with children, though. But I'm certain if any children use those terms, they picked them up from adults.0 -
nakedraygun wrote: »
Beliefs that are ridiculous do not deserve a critical response, they deserve to be mocked.It's some made up word that people use to try to shame others into their way of thinking. It's basically calling someone stupid but in an attempt to appear less offensive. Don't let people shame your personal decisions with words like woo. It used to be derp but that's become too much of a pejorative. The same will happen with woo. Next people will use the next "clever" in an attempt to disguise thier mean spiritedness.
Maybe something like sipsy. It sounds harmless enough until people wise up to what others are doing.
If anyone does indeed feel shame for holding either a ridiculous belief or non science based belief, perhaps they need to examine within themselves why and how they believe.
For me, I care about what I believe because I happen to care about reality and not a fantasy life - no matter how comforting that fantasy may be.
this response right here, might be the reason we get a few posts locked down0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »The sad thing is that some people are too unwilling to let go of their scientifically devoid and debunked positions ... aka woo ... that they are incapable of feeling shame for buying into such concepts.
and unfortunately those are the ones that will have to learn the hard way0 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »cafeaulait7 wrote: »nakedraygun wrote: »
Oh dear. Yes because being mocked for either a non-scientific or pre-scientific belief that is clearly wrong, is exactly the same as systematic persecution of a dogmatic authority like the pre-enlightenment Catholic Church.nakedraygun wrote: »
Beliefs that are ridiculous do not deserve a critical response, they deserve to be mocked.It's some made up word that people use to try to shame others into their way of thinking. It's basically calling someone stupid but in an attempt to appear less offensive. Don't let people shame your personal decisions with words like woo. It used to be derp but that's become too much of a pejorative. The same will happen with woo. Next people will use the next "clever" in an attempt to disguise thier mean spiritedness.
Maybe something like sipsy. It sounds harmless enough until people wise up to what others are doing.
If anyone does indeed feel shame for holding either a ridiculous belief or non science based belief, perhaps they need to examine within themselves why and how they believe.
For me, I care about what I believe because I happen to care about reality and not a fantasy life - no matter how comforting that fantasy may be.
They mocked Galiked too. I'm not going to be arrogant enough to pretend I know with 100% certainty if something is entirely bad, we're all different after all, and when I do chose to offer that side of things, I won't do it with childish, subjective, made up words that you're admitting are meant simply to mock.
Methinks your tone concern is an attempt to mask an inability to think rationally.
How is Brower47 not being rational? Please explain using your superior analytical skills. I'm always in awe of you science-y folks
Where woo is called an attack, blatant condescending attitude towards "science-y" posters is perfectly acceptable I assume?
I didn't call woo an attack at all.
I'm busting the posters b$@#$ for being so arrogant about what is rational or science-based vs fantasy, etc. If someone has such high standards for rationality, they will already have a logical argument on hand for any premise they've stated. Simple
I'm really not taking this very seriously, y'all. Sorry if it seemed that way!0 -
I'll be honest...
...I've completely lost track of whose side I'm on.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »It's some made up word that people use to try to shame others into their way of thinking. It's basically calling someone stupid but in an attempt to appear less offensive. Don't let people shame your personal decisions with words like woo. It used to be derp but that's become too much of a pejorative. The same will happen with woo. Next people will use the next "clever" in an attempt to disguise thier mean spiritedness.
Maybe something like sipsy. It sounds harmless enough until people wise up to what others are doing.
The word is not used to shame others, nor it is a way to be mean spirited. I am sorry you took it that way. I will apologize then and attempt to never use it when I see your username around.
I don't even know what sipsy means. I am wondering if that word was used to shame me in a mean spirited way. I sure hope not, but now I am not so sure. Now I feel shamed.
It's intended to mock as another supporter of that word stated outright.
That poster said it was to mock. I said otherwise. I also apologized. No one apologized for using words that I don't understand in an attempt to make me and make me feel stupid. However, I am sure that is because I don't matter. I'm used to that. Don't take it personally or feel the need to consider my feelings. They are not important.
Everyone's feelings are important. That's why we should try to be as inclusive as possible with our word choice along with using the most concise words available to us. I'm sorry you felt that way. You do matter, very much so.
Woo seems concise and inclusive. One word so short and yet able to cover so many people and so many cases.
It seems so many people are ready to be snarky with very little.
Perhaps, Pollyanna, you expect the best out of people.
I expect nothing. I expect exactly what's occurring. But I do not agree with your assumption that it's both concise and inclusive. How can it be concise if it means a multitude of different things. That seems to fly in the face of the meaning of the word concise. Vague would be a better word. Woo is vague but definitely inclusive in its ability to insult, belittle and mock.0 -
[Therealobi1 wrote: »nakedraygun wrote: »
Beliefs that are ridiculous do not deserve a critical response, they deserve to be mocked.It's some made up word that people use to try to shame others into their way of thinking. It's basically calling someone stupid but in an attempt to appear less offensive. Don't let people shame your personal decisions with words like woo. It used to be derp but that's become too much of a pejorative. The same will happen with woo. Next people will use the next "clever" in an attempt to disguise thier mean spiritedness.
Maybe something like sipsy. It sounds harmless enough until people wise up to what others are doing.
If anyone does indeed feel shame for holding either a ridiculous belief or non science based belief, perhaps they need to examine within themselves why and how they believe.
For me, I care about what I believe because I happen to care about reality and not a fantasy life - no matter how comforting that fantasy may be.
this response right here, might be the reason we get a few posts locked down
What's the point of mocking though? Wouldn't giving a critical response be more productive?
the mocking often makes the OP more stubborn or disappear.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »It's some made up word that people use to try to shame others into their way of thinking. It's basically calling someone stupid but in an attempt to appear less offensive. Don't let people shame your personal decisions with words like woo. It used to be derp but that's become too much of a pejorative. The same will happen with woo. Next people will use the next "clever" in an attempt to disguise thier mean spiritedness.
Maybe something like sipsy. It sounds harmless enough until people wise up to what others are doing.
The word is not used to shame others, nor it is a way to be mean spirited. I am sorry you took it that way. I will apologize then and attempt to never use it when I see your username around.
I don't even know what sipsy means. I am wondering if that word was used to shame me in a mean spirited way. I sure hope not, but now I am not so sure. Now I feel shamed.
It's intended to mock as another supporter of that word stated outright.
That poster said it was to mock. I said otherwise. I also apologized. No one apologized for using words that I don't understand in an attempt to make me and make me feel stupid. However, I am sure that is because I don't matter. I'm used to that. Don't take it personally or feel the need to consider my feelings. They are not important.
Everyone's feelings are important. That's why we should try to be as inclusive as possible with our word choice along with using the most concise words available to us. I'm sorry you felt that way. You do matter, very much so.
Woo seems concise and inclusive. One word so short and yet able to cover so many people and so many cases.
It seems so many people are ready to be snarky with very little.
Perhaps, Pollyanna, you expect the best out of people.
I expect nothing. I expect exactly what's occurring. But I do not agree with your assumption that it's both concise and inclusive. How can it be concise if it means a multitude of different things. That seems to fly in the face of the meaning of the word concise. Vague would be a better word. Woo is vague but definitely inclusive in its ability to insult, belittle and mock.
concise: brief but comprehensive.
3 letters, one word seems brief.
vague seems comprehensive.
But what do I know, I'm ESL.
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »It's some made up word that people use to try to shame others into their way of thinking. It's basically calling someone stupid but in an attempt to appear less offensive. Don't let people shame your personal decisions with words like woo. It used to be derp but that's become too much of a pejorative. The same will happen with woo. Next people will use the next "clever" in an attempt to disguise thier mean spiritedness.
Maybe something like sipsy. It sounds harmless enough until people wise up to what others are doing.
The word is not used to shame others, nor it is a way to be mean spirited. I am sorry you took it that way. I will apologize then and attempt to never use it when I see your username around.
I don't even know what sipsy means. I am wondering if that word was used to shame me in a mean spirited way. I sure hope not, but now I am not so sure. Now I feel shamed.
It's intended to mock as another supporter of that word stated outright.
That poster said it was to mock. I said otherwise. I also apologized. No one apologized for using words that I don't understand in an attempt to make me and make me feel stupid. However, I am sure that is because I don't matter. I'm used to that. Don't take it personally or feel the need to consider my feelings. They are not important.
Everyone's feelings are important. That's why we should try to be as inclusive as possible with our word choice along with using the most concise words available to us. I'm sorry you felt that way. You do matter, very much so.
Woo seems concise and inclusive. One word so short and yet able to cover so many people and so many cases.
It seems so many people are ready to be snarky with very little.
Perhaps, Pollyanna, you expect the best out of people.
I expect nothing. I expect exactly what's occurring. But I do not agree with your assumption that it's both concise and inclusive. How can it be concise if it means a multitude of different things. That seems to fly in the face of the meaning of the word concise. Vague would be a better word. Woo is vague but definitely inclusive in its ability to insult, belittle and mock.
concise: brief but comprehensive.
3 letters, one word seems brief.
vague seems comprehensive.
But what do I know, I'm ESL.
What does that mean, "vague seems comprehensive"?0 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »cafeaulait7 wrote: »nakedraygun wrote: »
Oh dear. Yes because being mocked for either a non-scientific or pre-scientific belief that is clearly wrong, is exactly the same as systematic persecution of a dogmatic authority like the pre-enlightenment Catholic Church.nakedraygun wrote: »
Beliefs that are ridiculous do not deserve a critical response, they deserve to be mocked.It's some made up word that people use to try to shame others into their way of thinking. It's basically calling someone stupid but in an attempt to appear less offensive. Don't let people shame your personal decisions with words like woo. It used to be derp but that's become too much of a pejorative. The same will happen with woo. Next people will use the next "clever" in an attempt to disguise thier mean spiritedness.
Maybe something like sipsy. It sounds harmless enough until people wise up to what others are doing.
If anyone does indeed feel shame for holding either a ridiculous belief or non science based belief, perhaps they need to examine within themselves why and how they believe.
For me, I care about what I believe because I happen to care about reality and not a fantasy life - no matter how comforting that fantasy may be.
They mocked Galiked too. I'm not going to be arrogant enough to pretend I know with 100% certainty if something is entirely bad, we're all different after all, and when I do chose to offer that side of things, I won't do it with childish, subjective, made up words that you're admitting are meant simply to mock.
Methinks your tone concern is an attempt to mask an inability to think rationally.
How is Brower47 not being rational? Please explain using your superior analytical skills. I'm always in awe of you science-y folks
Where woo is called an attack, blatant condescending attitude towards "science-y" posters is perfectly acceptable I assume?
Duh. (Can I say that or is duh too colloquial? Can I say colloquial or is it too big?)0 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »cafeaulait7 wrote: »nakedraygun wrote: »
Oh dear. Yes because being mocked for either a non-scientific or pre-scientific belief that is clearly wrong, is exactly the same as systematic persecution of a dogmatic authority like the pre-enlightenment Catholic Church.nakedraygun wrote: »
Beliefs that are ridiculous do not deserve a critical response, they deserve to be mocked.It's some made up word that people use to try to shame others into their way of thinking. It's basically calling someone stupid but in an attempt to appear less offensive. Don't let people shame your personal decisions with words like woo. It used to be derp but that's become too much of a pejorative. The same will happen with woo. Next people will use the next "clever" in an attempt to disguise thier mean spiritedness.
Maybe something like sipsy. It sounds harmless enough until people wise up to what others are doing.
If anyone does indeed feel shame for holding either a ridiculous belief or non science based belief, perhaps they need to examine within themselves why and how they believe.
For me, I care about what I believe because I happen to care about reality and not a fantasy life - no matter how comforting that fantasy may be.
They mocked Galiked too. I'm not going to be arrogant enough to pretend I know with 100% certainty if something is entirely bad, we're all different after all, and when I do chose to offer that side of things, I won't do it with childish, subjective, made up words that you're admitting are meant simply to mock.
Methinks your tone concern is an attempt to mask an inability to think rationally.
How is Brower47 not being rational? Please explain using your superior analytical skills. I'm always in awe of you science-y folks
Where woo is called an attack, blatant condescending attitude towards "science-y" posters is perfectly acceptable I assume?
Duh. (Can I say that or is duh too colloquial? Can I say colloquial or is it too big?)
I dunno, it is a 3 letter word and we seem to be against that here...0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »It's some made up word that people use to try to shame others into their way of thinking. It's basically calling someone stupid but in an attempt to appear less offensive. Don't let people shame your personal decisions with words like woo. It used to be derp but that's become too much of a pejorative. The same will happen with woo. Next people will use the next "clever" in an attempt to disguise thier mean spiritedness.
Maybe something like sipsy. It sounds harmless enough until people wise up to what others are doing.
The word is not used to shame others, nor it is a way to be mean spirited. I am sorry you took it that way. I will apologize then and attempt to never use it when I see your username around.
I don't even know what sipsy means. I am wondering if that word was used to shame me in a mean spirited way. I sure hope not, but now I am not so sure. Now I feel shamed.
It's intended to mock as another supporter of that word stated outright.
That poster said it was to mock. I said otherwise. I also apologized. No one apologized for using words that I don't understand in an attempt to make me and make me feel stupid. However, I am sure that is because I don't matter. I'm used to that. Don't take it personally or feel the need to consider my feelings. They are not important.
Everyone's feelings are important. That's why we should try to be as inclusive as possible with our word choice along with using the most concise words available to us. I'm sorry you felt that way. You do matter, very much so.
Woo seems concise and inclusive. One word so short and yet able to cover so many people and so many cases.
It seems so many people are ready to be snarky with very little.
Perhaps, Pollyanna, you expect the best out of people.
I expect nothing. I expect exactly what's occurring. But I do not agree with your assumption that it's both concise and inclusive. How can it be concise if it means a multitude of different things. That seems to fly in the face of the meaning of the word concise. Vague would be a better word. Woo is vague but definitely inclusive in its ability to insult, belittle and mock.
concise: brief but comprehensive.
3 letters, one word seems brief.
vague seems comprehensive.
But what do I know, I'm ESL.
What does that mean, "vague seems comprehensive"?
something that is vague, less explicit, covers more meaning. Something that covers more meaning is comprehensive.0 -
They both get my vote as acceptable. For whatever that's worth.CoffeeNCardio wrote: »cafeaulait7 wrote: »nakedraygun wrote: »
Oh dear. Yes because being mocked for either a non-scientific or pre-scientific belief that is clearly wrong, is exactly the same as systematic persecution of a dogmatic authority like the pre-enlightenment Catholic Church.nakedraygun wrote: »
Beliefs that are ridiculous do not deserve a critical response, they deserve to be mocked.It's some made up word that people use to try to shame others into their way of thinking. It's basically calling someone stupid but in an attempt to appear less offensive. Don't let people shame your personal decisions with words like woo. It used to be derp but that's become too much of a pejorative. The same will happen with woo. Next people will use the next "clever" in an attempt to disguise thier mean spiritedness.
Maybe something like sipsy. It sounds harmless enough until people wise up to what others are doing.
If anyone does indeed feel shame for holding either a ridiculous belief or non science based belief, perhaps they need to examine within themselves why and how they believe.
For me, I care about what I believe because I happen to care about reality and not a fantasy life - no matter how comforting that fantasy may be.
They mocked Galiked too. I'm not going to be arrogant enough to pretend I know with 100% certainty if something is entirely bad, we're all different after all, and when I do chose to offer that side of things, I won't do it with childish, subjective, made up words that you're admitting are meant simply to mock.
Methinks your tone concern is an attempt to mask an inability to think rationally.
How is Brower47 not being rational? Please explain using your superior analytical skills. I'm always in awe of you science-y folks
Where woo is called an attack, blatant condescending attitude towards "science-y" posters is perfectly acceptable I assume?
Duh. (Can I say that or is duh too colloquial? Can I say colloquial or is it too big?)
I'd like to see less "woo", "derp" and "broscience", myself, but wouldn't go so far as to tell people not to use the words.
People use the words they like!0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »It's some made up word that people use to try to shame others into their way of thinking. It's basically calling someone stupid but in an attempt to appear less offensive. Don't let people shame your personal decisions with words like woo. It used to be derp but that's become too much of a pejorative. The same will happen with woo. Next people will use the next "clever" in an attempt to disguise thier mean spiritedness.
Maybe something like sipsy. It sounds harmless enough until people wise up to what others are doing.
The word is not used to shame others, nor it is a way to be mean spirited. I am sorry you took it that way. I will apologize then and attempt to never use it when I see your username around.
I don't even know what sipsy means. I am wondering if that word was used to shame me in a mean spirited way. I sure hope not, but now I am not so sure. Now I feel shamed.
It's intended to mock as another supporter of that word stated outright.
That poster said it was to mock. I said otherwise. I also apologized. No one apologized for using words that I don't understand in an attempt to make me and make me feel stupid. However, I am sure that is because I don't matter. I'm used to that. Don't take it personally or feel the need to consider my feelings. They are not important.
Everyone's feelings are important. That's why we should try to be as inclusive as possible with our word choice along with using the most concise words available to us. I'm sorry you felt that way. You do matter, very much so.
Woo seems concise and inclusive. One word so short and yet able to cover so many people and so many cases.
It seems so many people are ready to be snarky with very little.
Perhaps, Pollyanna, you expect the best out of people.
I expect nothing. I expect exactly what's occurring. But I do not agree with your assumption that it's both concise and inclusive. How can it be concise if it means a multitude of different things. That seems to fly in the face of the meaning of the word concise. Vague would be a better word. Woo is vague but definitely inclusive in its ability to insult, belittle and mock.
concise: brief but comprehensive.
3 letters, one word seems brief.
vague seems comprehensive.
But what do I know, I'm ESL.
What does that mean, "vague seems comprehensive"?
something that is vague, less explicit, covers more meaning. Something that covers more meaning is comprehensive.
I see where you were going with that, now.
"Vague" doesn't really cover anything, though. So, I'd disagree about "vague" being "comprehensive", but I get what you meant. Thanks.0 -
Its like ten thousand spoons when all you need is a knife...EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
Whereas words like "derp" and "broscience" are the hallmark of genius?nakedraygun wrote: »
Oh dear. Yes because being mocked for either a non-scientific or pre-scientific belief that is clearly wrong, is exactly the same as systematic persecution of a dogmatic authority like the pre-enlightenment Catholic Church.nakedraygun wrote: »
Beliefs that are ridiculous do not deserve a critical response, they deserve to be mocked.It's some made up word that people use to try to shame others into their way of thinking. It's basically calling someone stupid but in an attempt to appear less offensive. Don't let people shame your personal decisions with words like woo. It used to be derp but that's become too much of a pejorative. The same will happen with woo. Next people will use the next "clever" in an attempt to disguise thier mean spiritedness.
Maybe something like sipsy. It sounds harmless enough until people wise up to what others are doing.
If anyone does indeed feel shame for holding either a ridiculous belief or non science based belief, perhaps they need to examine within themselves why and how they believe.
For me, I care about what I believe because I happen to care about reality and not a fantasy life - no matter how comforting that fantasy may be.
They mocked Galiked too. I'm not going to be arrogant enough to pretend I know with 100% certainty if something is entirely bad, we're all different after all, and when I do chose to offer that side of things, I won't do it with childish, subjective, made up words that you're admitting are meant simply to mock.
Methinks your tone concern is an attempt to mask an inability to think rationally.
Are you trying to insult people who use them? How ironic.
0 -
They both get my vote as acceptable. For whatever that's worth.CoffeeNCardio wrote: »cafeaulait7 wrote: »nakedraygun wrote: »
Oh dear. Yes because being mocked for either a non-scientific or pre-scientific belief that is clearly wrong, is exactly the same as systematic persecution of a dogmatic authority like the pre-enlightenment Catholic Church.nakedraygun wrote: »
Beliefs that are ridiculous do not deserve a critical response, they deserve to be mocked.It's some made up word that people use to try to shame others into their way of thinking. It's basically calling someone stupid but in an attempt to appear less offensive. Don't let people shame your personal decisions with words like woo. It used to be derp but that's become too much of a pejorative. The same will happen with woo. Next people will use the next "clever" in an attempt to disguise thier mean spiritedness.
Maybe something like sipsy. It sounds harmless enough until people wise up to what others are doing.
If anyone does indeed feel shame for holding either a ridiculous belief or non science based belief, perhaps they need to examine within themselves why and how they believe.
For me, I care about what I believe because I happen to care about reality and not a fantasy life - no matter how comforting that fantasy may be.
They mocked Galiked too. I'm not going to be arrogant enough to pretend I know with 100% certainty if something is entirely bad, we're all different after all, and when I do chose to offer that side of things, I won't do it with childish, subjective, made up words that you're admitting are meant simply to mock.
Methinks your tone concern is an attempt to mask an inability to think rationally.
How is Brower47 not being rational? Please explain using your superior analytical skills. I'm always in awe of you science-y folks
Where woo is called an attack, blatant condescending attitude towards "science-y" posters is perfectly acceptable I assume?
Duh. (Can I say that or is duh too colloquial? Can I say colloquial or is it too big?)
I'd like to see less "woo", "derp" and "broscience", myself, but wouldn't go so far as to tell people not to use the words.
People use the words they like!
That's kind of vague.0 -
justrollme wrote: »Lourdesong wrote: »Therealobi1 wrote: »
I didn't have anyone in mind. I'm not even sure who all uses the words. I was answering the question. I'd never heard "derp" or "broscience" before I was on MFP and had to ask, myself.
I don't use the words, myself, but it's nice to know what other people mean.
We all know you are never rude and never anyone, right?
why did you post this in here
and where did they use the word woo?
That's just kalikel's stalker making another appearance and accomplishing little else than create sympathy for kalikel that she has some psycho stalker following her around on the boards and creating accounts and disabling them for the purpose of trying to humiliate her.. been going on for months now.
Sounds like such a person might be very troubled.
As for "woo," I think context matters. Generally slang doesn't bother me too much, but I do think @brower47 has made a fair and worthy point.
Well if they aren't troubled they're gonna be in trouble. *report*0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »It's some made up word that people use to try to shame others into their way of thinking. It's basically calling someone stupid but in an attempt to appear less offensive. Don't let people shame your personal decisions with words like woo. It used to be derp but that's become too much of a pejorative. The same will happen with woo. Next people will use the next "clever" in an attempt to disguise thier mean spiritedness.
Maybe something like sipsy. It sounds harmless enough until people wise up to what others are doing.
The word is not used to shame others, nor it is a way to be mean spirited. I am sorry you took it that way. I will apologize then and attempt to never use it when I see your username around.
I don't even know what sipsy means. I am wondering if that word was used to shame me in a mean spirited way. I sure hope not, but now I am not so sure. Now I feel shamed.
It's intended to mock as another supporter of that word stated outright.
That poster said it was to mock. I said otherwise. I also apologized. No one apologized for using words that I don't understand in an attempt to make me and make me feel stupid. However, I am sure that is because I don't matter. I'm used to that. Don't take it personally or feel the need to consider my feelings. They are not important.
Everyone's feelings are important. That's why we should try to be as inclusive as possible with our word choice along with using the most concise words available to us. I'm sorry you felt that way. You do matter, very much so.
Woo seems concise and inclusive. One word so short and yet able to cover so many people and so many cases.
It seems so many people are ready to be snarky with very little.
Perhaps, Pollyanna, you expect the best out of people.
I expect nothing. I expect exactly what's occurring. But I do not agree with your assumption that it's both concise and inclusive. How can it be concise if it means a multitude of different things. That seems to fly in the face of the meaning of the word concise. Vague would be a better word. Woo is vague but definitely inclusive in its ability to insult, belittle and mock.
concise: brief but comprehensive.
3 letters, one word seems brief.
vague seems comprehensive.
But what do I know, I'm ESL.
What does that mean, "vague seems comprehensive"?
something that is vague, less explicit, covers more meaning. Something that covers more meaning is comprehensive.
I see where you were going with that, now.
"Vague" doesn't really cover anything, though. So, I'd disagree about "vague" being "comprehensive", but I get what you meant. Thanks.
consider: you have a fever.
I give you a vague response - you have an infection. It covers a lot more of possible causes than saying you have aspergillosis. Sometimes vague can be true while precise is wrong. 'An infection' covers thousands of possible answers.0 -
I require no sympathy. I am not hurt nor do I feel humiliated. Why would I?Lourdesong wrote: »Therealobi1 wrote: »
I didn't have anyone in mind. I'm not even sure who all uses the words. I was answering the question. I'd never heard "derp" or "broscience" before I was on MFP and had to ask, myself.
I don't use the words, myself, but it's nice to know what other people mean.
We all know you are never rude and never anyone, right?
why did you post this in here
and where did they use the word woo?
That's just kalikel's stalker making another appearance and accomplishing little else than create sympathy for kalikel that she has some psycho stalker following her around on the boards and creating accounts and disabling them for the purpose of trying to humiliate her.. been going on for months now.
Don't worry about me.
I didn't even report it, lol.
Sympathy doesn't need requiring by one party to be felt by another. I reported it. We can't have people doing that kind of nonsense. It starts with you not getting butthurt and then people start to think it's okay and then the dangerous VLCD type **** gets missed by the mods because they're spending their time dealing with the sudden pollution of personal attacks.0 -
I don't like the words. I think they're kind of silly. But it's a public board. People are going to use the words they like, not the ones I like. I wouldn't change my words for them, so why ask them to change theirs for me?EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
They both get my vote as acceptable. For whatever that's worth.CoffeeNCardio wrote: »cafeaulait7 wrote: »nakedraygun wrote: »
Oh dear. Yes because being mocked for either a non-scientific or pre-scientific belief that is clearly wrong, is exactly the same as systematic persecution of a dogmatic authority like the pre-enlightenment Catholic Church.nakedraygun wrote: »
Beliefs that are ridiculous do not deserve a critical response, they deserve to be mocked.It's some made up word that people use to try to shame others into their way of thinking. It's basically calling someone stupid but in an attempt to appear less offensive. Don't let people shame your personal decisions with words like woo. It used to be derp but that's become too much of a pejorative. The same will happen with woo. Next people will use the next "clever" in an attempt to disguise thier mean spiritedness.
Maybe something like sipsy. It sounds harmless enough until people wise up to what others are doing.
If anyone does indeed feel shame for holding either a ridiculous belief or non science based belief, perhaps they need to examine within themselves why and how they believe.
For me, I care about what I believe because I happen to care about reality and not a fantasy life - no matter how comforting that fantasy may be.
They mocked Galiked too. I'm not going to be arrogant enough to pretend I know with 100% certainty if something is entirely bad, we're all different after all, and when I do chose to offer that side of things, I won't do it with childish, subjective, made up words that you're admitting are meant simply to mock.
Methinks your tone concern is an attempt to mask an inability to think rationally.
How is Brower47 not being rational? Please explain using your superior analytical skills. I'm always in awe of you science-y folks
Where woo is called an attack, blatant condescending attitude towards "science-y" posters is perfectly acceptable I assume?
Duh. (Can I say that or is duh too colloquial? Can I say colloquial or is it too big?)
I'd like to see less "woo", "derp" and "broscience", myself, but wouldn't go so far as to tell people not to use the words.
People use the words they like!
That's kind of vague.
If you're on a public board, you'll have to accept that different people have different ideas, choose different words, etc.
0 -
I understand the words, lol. I just disagree over "vague" being "comprehensive." I don't want to have a big fight about it. We disagree. That's all. I appreciate you having pointed out what you meant, though.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »It's some made up word that people use to try to shame others into their way of thinking. It's basically calling someone stupid but in an attempt to appear less offensive. Don't let people shame your personal decisions with words like woo. It used to be derp but that's become too much of a pejorative. The same will happen with woo. Next people will use the next "clever" in an attempt to disguise thier mean spiritedness.
Maybe something like sipsy. It sounds harmless enough until people wise up to what others are doing.
The word is not used to shame others, nor it is a way to be mean spirited. I am sorry you took it that way. I will apologize then and attempt to never use it when I see your username around.
I don't even know what sipsy means. I am wondering if that word was used to shame me in a mean spirited way. I sure hope not, but now I am not so sure. Now I feel shamed.
It's intended to mock as another supporter of that word stated outright.
That poster said it was to mock. I said otherwise. I also apologized. No one apologized for using words that I don't understand in an attempt to make me and make me feel stupid. However, I am sure that is because I don't matter. I'm used to that. Don't take it personally or feel the need to consider my feelings. They are not important.
Everyone's feelings are important. That's why we should try to be as inclusive as possible with our word choice along with using the most concise words available to us. I'm sorry you felt that way. You do matter, very much so.
Woo seems concise and inclusive. One word so short and yet able to cover so many people and so many cases.
It seems so many people are ready to be snarky with very little.
Perhaps, Pollyanna, you expect the best out of people.
I expect nothing. I expect exactly what's occurring. But I do not agree with your assumption that it's both concise and inclusive. How can it be concise if it means a multitude of different things. That seems to fly in the face of the meaning of the word concise. Vague would be a better word. Woo is vague but definitely inclusive in its ability to insult, belittle and mock.
concise: brief but comprehensive.
3 letters, one word seems brief.
vague seems comprehensive.
But what do I know, I'm ESL.
What does that mean, "vague seems comprehensive"?
something that is vague, less explicit, covers more meaning. Something that covers more meaning is comprehensive.
I see where you were going with that, now.
"Vague" doesn't really cover anything, though. So, I'd disagree about "vague" being "comprehensive", but I get what you meant. Thanks.
consider: you have a fever.
I give you a vague response - you have an infection. It covers a lot more of possible causes than saying you have aspergillosis. Sometimes vague can be true while precise is wrong. 'An infection' covers thousands of possible answers.
0 -
Dont mind me, just cleaning up some trolling.0
-
-
If you believe in woo, you are wrong and you should feel bad.0
-
In all honesty, people are getting so angry over this word - 'woo' - I think it has a legitimate origin. According to the MacMillan dictionary: To woo is to try to persuade people to support you or to buy something from you, especially by saying and doing nice things. So while it may have been loosely used as a noun - 'that's woo ' here on the boards, I think when it's used that way, what we are saying is that you have been taken in by a sales pitch.0
-
In all honesty, people are getting so angry over this word - 'woo' - I think it has a legitimate origin. According to the MacMillan dictionary: To woo is to try to persuade people to support you or to buy something from you, especially by saying and doing nice things. So while it may have been loosely used as a noun - 'that's woo ' here on the boards, I think when it's used that way, what we are saying is that you have been taken in by a sales pitch.
I've seen it being used as a word for pseudoscientific nonsense since at least 2005.
"Derp" is much more recent.0 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »Guys seriously....
Everytime we reply to Ribbitwoo's nonsense that's another post for the mods to have to kill. It makes it more complicated and it stays up longer. Use an @ if you want to respond.If you believe in woo, you are wrong and you should feel bad.
They don't always see that at the time.
Lots of people tried cleanses etc and now see that they are waste of money0 -
I think of the song. I thought he was extremely witty, changing the spelling up, but it's something else entirely, I forget what. I still him the song, sometimes, when it see it.
Soooooo, Soolaimon. Soolai, Soolai, Soolaimon.
It's a good song, even if it's not him.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8VVir_GjEA4 0 -
If you believe in woo, you are wrong and you should feel bad.
But some posters believe it's much more comforting to say "I'm sure your 30-day, 47-calorie saltine and lemon water detox will work great, we're all different!!1! Go YOU!!!111!!!", rather than pointing out that there's no need to go to such extremes and there are much healthier options which would be far more effective. After all, you could make somebody uncomfortable by pointing out that what they're doing is a complete waste of money and will do nothing to help them reach their goals - and feelz are apparently more important than goals to some.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions