What is "woo"
Options
Replies
-
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
0 -
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.0 -
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.
0 -
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.0 -
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 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »If it was meant to inform, they'd use informative words like dangerous, harmful or misleading. They don't use those words.
Personally if I'm going to describe something as woo, using one of those alternatives would lend it far more credence than it deserves.
Where something is unsubstantiated bollocks nonsense then sometimes ridiculing the information is an entirely appropriate response.
When discussing topics, I like to remain civil and void the use of poorly understood and very subjective words. Objective words get the point across without unnecessary belittling of people's legitimate questions. If a person can't use grown up words to have an adult discussion, then they should just avoid having conversations with other adults.
And in what world does saying something is dangerous lend credence to it? The next time I'm waking on a street where there's construction, I'm going to hope the warning signs say woo because saying danger doesn't lend enough credence to the situation.
Right?! When I see the word derp and woo used by adults....yikes. Especially derp......Lol.
I don't know (don't keep up with it) but maybe they have been declared...scientific words.0 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »
Are you suggesting we use Patton Oswald as our guide for proper forum etiquette?
No, I'm suggesting arrogant jerks sometimes say things that make sense:)0 -
Nope. I don't have to make fun of them. I don't have to make fun of anyone.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.
I'm trying to figure out exactly what point that person is making, because for the life of me, I cannot.
Does he really think that the woman suggesting that more "adult" words be employed is foolish (or "irrational") because "derp" and "broscience" are the kind of words that smart people use when having interesting conversations?
Does anyone think that?
I really don't know. It would appear so, but I need clarification.0 -
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?0 -
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions