What is "woo"
Options
Replies
-
-
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
And if you don't know what anti-ontological is, you should feel bad!
(Because if you can dish it, you can take it
)
I don't mind good-natured ribbing about things one bit, btw, y'all. I enjoy it. I do get irritated if people get off on being too mean-spirited, but it is the internet, so that's the way it goes. Thick skin and all that.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 isn't compatible with their goals - and feelz are apparently more important than goals to some.
Right? How does one think it is more helpful to fill their head with more nonsense rather than give them info they can use? I will never understand this.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
I didn't say I was trying to define woo.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.
You'll note that I referred to ridiculing the information, not the individual.
What I have noted is that frequently sticking with a technical explanation of how something works is a fairly reliable method to end up attacked.
Sometimes people merely poison the well...
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
I didn't say I was trying to define woo.
I didn't say you were trying to define woo.
It's still a weak argument, and you should feel bad.
0 -
I am not much in to using the latest buzz words but if someone else wants to use them that doesn't concern me.
However I do feel at times that there are some users here that uses them as a way to elevate themselves by putting others down and making them feel like idiots.
Notice people...I said SOME users...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 isn't compatible with their goals - and feelz are apparently more important than goals to some.
Right? How does one think it is more helpful to fill their head with more nonsense rather than give them info they can use? I will never understand this.
VLCDs and some of the other ridiculous things people consider doing for weight loss (prolonged fasts, etc.) have known, documented deleterious effects upon one's health - yet people will coddle these ideas and feel that telling a poster that doing those things is wrong is being "unsupportive" and "mean". OTOH, nicotine is scientifically proven to blunt the appetite and increase the metabolism, but I'd be willing to bet that if somebody posted a thread saying "I'm going to start smoking a pack of cigarettes a day to lose weight!", they'd be roundly shouted down, told how unhealthy and dangerous smoking is, etc. What's the difference? Either way you're doing something stupid that you shouldn't be doing which is going to adversely affect your health - and nicotine is far more effective than any of Dr. Oz's "miracle fat blasters" that we see proposed/discussed in threads here multiple times every day. I wonder if these same "supportive" posters would blithely chirp "I've never tried it, but good luck on your new routine, I'm sure you'll see great results! Go you, smoke 'em up!".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.
Only its not being said like that.
It's been said like that hundreds, if not thousands, of times. After months of addressing the same issues over and over, the topics get labeled as woo because all of the coddling answers were used up long ago.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 isn't compatible with their goals - and feelz are apparently more important than goals to some.
Right? How does one think it is more helpful to fill their head with more nonsense rather than give them info they can use? I will never understand this.
VLCDs and some of the other ridiculous things people consider doing for weight loss (prolonged fasts, etc.) have known, documented deleterious effects upon one's health - yet people will coddle these ideas and feel that telling a poster that doing those things is being "unsupportive" and "mean". OTOH, nicotine is scientifically proven to blunt the appetite and increase the metabolism, but I'd be willing to bet that if somebody posted a thread saying "I'm going to start smoking a pack of cigarettes a day to lose weight!", they'd be roundly shouted down, told how unhealthy and dangerous smoking is, etc. What's the difference? Either way you're doing something stupid that you shouldn't be doing which is going to adversely affect your health - and nicotine is far more effective than any of Dr. Oz's "miracle fat blasters" that we see proposed/discussed in threads here multiple times every day. I wonder if these same posters would blithely say "I've never tried it, but good luck on your new routine, I'm sure you'll see great results! Go you, smoke 'em up!".
VLCDs are now in the "woo" bucket?0 -
I thought "woo" was a contraction of "woo-woo" - a belief in the supernatural / occult (like when you are telling a ghost story and say "wooooo") which then morphed into a general term for a belief which is not supported by any kind of meaningful evidence.
Like other users I have been using the term "woo" (actually for me I use "woo woo") for years. However, I have been using it much less in recent times as I do think it now has a derogatory / dismissive association (perhaps unfairly.)
Do some people use it with the intention to personally insult others on the sly? I'm sure they do. Is that how it is used by everyone or the majority of users. Of that I am much less certain and I doubt it.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »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 isn't compatible with their goals - and feelz are apparently more important than goals to some.
Right? How does one think it is more helpful to fill their head with more nonsense rather than give them info they can use? I will never understand this.
VLCDs and some of the other ridiculous things people consider doing for weight loss (prolonged fasts, etc.) have known, documented deleterious effects upon one's health - yet people will coddle these ideas and feel that telling a poster that doing those things is being "unsupportive" and "mean". OTOH, nicotine is scientifically proven to blunt the appetite and increase the metabolism, but I'd be willing to bet that if somebody posted a thread saying "I'm going to start smoking a pack of cigarettes a day to lose weight!", they'd be roundly shouted down, told how unhealthy and dangerous smoking is, etc. What's the difference? Either way you're doing something stupid that you shouldn't be doing which is going to adversely affect your health - and nicotine is far more effective than any of Dr. Oz's "miracle fat blasters" that we see proposed/discussed in threads here multiple times every day. I wonder if these same posters would blithely say "I've never tried it, but good luck on your new routine, I'm sure you'll see great results! Go you, smoke 'em up!".
VLCDs are now in the "woo" bucket?
Some people have very legitimate medical reasons for being on VLCDs. You and I might not agree one woo per se but I think we agree that using it for this is less than ideal.
However, I love his/her use of the word deleterious. It'd be great if people could use that instead of the nonsense word 'woo'.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »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 isn't compatible with their goals - and feelz are apparently more important than goals to some.
Right? How does one think it is more helpful to fill their head with more nonsense rather than give them info they can use? I will never understand this.
VLCDs and some of the other ridiculous things people consider doing for weight loss (prolonged fasts, etc.) have known, documented deleterious effects upon one's health - yet people will coddle these ideas and feel that telling a poster that doing those things is being "unsupportive" and "mean". OTOH, nicotine is scientifically proven to blunt the appetite and increase the metabolism, but I'd be willing to bet that if somebody posted a thread saying "I'm going to start smoking a pack of cigarettes a day to lose weight!", they'd be roundly shouted down, told how unhealthy and dangerous smoking is, etc. What's the difference? Either way you're doing something stupid that you shouldn't be doing which is going to adversely affect your health - and nicotine is far more effective than any of Dr. Oz's "miracle fat blasters" that we see proposed/discussed in threads here multiple times every day. I wonder if these same posters would blithely say "I've never tried it, but good luck on your new routine, I'm sure you'll see great results! Go you, smoke 'em up!".
VLCDs are now in the "woo" bucket?
Some people have very legitimate medical reasons for being on VLCDs. You and I might not agree one woo per se but I think we agree that using it for this is less than ideal.
However, I love his/her use of the word deleterious. It'd be great if people could use that instead of the nonsense word 'woo'.
There is a difference in a medically prescribed and supervised diet and the usual VLCDs seen on MFP that are completely self administered, usually based on scientifically devoid reasoning, and are inherently dangerous.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »There is a difference in a medically prescribed and supervised diet and the usual VLCDs seen on MFP that are completely self administered, usually based on scientifically devoid reasoning, and are inherently dangerous.
e.g., "Military Diet", "General Motors Diet", "Cabbage Soup Diet", etc., etc.
Yes, I stand by my statement.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »There is a difference in a medically prescribed and supervised diet and the usual VLCDs seen on MFP that are completely self administered, usually based on scientifically devoid reasoning, and are inherently dangerous.
e.g., "Military Diet", "General Motors Diet", "Cabbage Soup Diet", etc., etc.
Yes, I stand by my statement.
You left out the plethora of "cleanse" and "detox" VLCDs that populate these forums.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »There is a difference in a medically prescribed and supervised diet and the usual VLCDs seen on MFP that are completely self administered, usually based on scientifically devoid reasoning, and are inherently dangerous.
e.g., "Military Diet", "General Motors Diet", "Cabbage Soup Diet", etc., etc.
Yes, I stand by my statement.
You left out the plethora of "cleanse" and "detox" VLCDs that populate these forums.
Ah, yes. More woo.0 -
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