It isn't "I'm laughing with you," either. Nor is 'snarl, snark, snark, snarl, LOL.


Adding LOL, to the end of every snarky rant, doesn't excuse the bitchfest, or make it seem like you are really there laughing it up behind your keyboard. It doesn't imply deniable implausibility that you don't realize you are insulting and condescending. Ha ha ha.


We see what you are doing there.

...about the kind of people they really are, their snide/snarky "arguments" aside....

quite a number of people seem less than interested in democracy, but committed to bullying,
disruption and intimidation.
As if their way was what America stands for.
Not hardly.
Of course, some of them do seem to be non-citizens...
others could almost be mistaken for Republicans or
simply hard core conservatives.
I despise conservative mindsets, and I dont care who anyone votes for.
Its NOT my business, or for me to say.
Not in a democracy, anyway.

putting it nicely, IMO.

Whenever I see someone use one of those in place of real words, I always figure that person has borrowed a playbook from his or her 10 year old neighbor kid. They think they're being incredibly witty, but they're not.


My thought..."Really? REALLY? Is that the best you can come up with??"

Then I lose respect for much of what that person says, ever.

...and, on the whole, better listeners.

Having had a youngest son who just passed out of that particular demographic...

I've seen conversation points made declarimg that they use LOL after snotty comments, can't other posters notice they are not mad or serious. Why should anyone be offended.

The same person made sure to tell me I must be passive/aggressive when I more or less tried to get her to understand "Most of our troubles are of our own making". Whooo boy!


And I get that my sarcasm is passive aggressive but, I wasn't being the usual sarcastic ass, I am.

...which I admit is likewise derisive, at least when I use it, simply because I have little respect for magical thinking. But "woo" has the distinct advantage of being faster to type.

I'll see your and sweeten the pot wit a !

I don't want to cite lengthy definitions to specify strain and sub-strains when woo will do.

Last edited Mon Jan 6, 2014, 10:30 AM - Edit history (1)

There are many forms of CAM which are supported by solid evidence.

When you dump everything you deem to be "woo" into one bucket -and dismiss it (and those of us who use any form of CAM) as imbeciles, that is insulting those of us who include CAM as part of our healthcare are based on informed review of all the evidence available.

There are many ways of using non-traditional medicine as part of health care. CAM is the umbrella term for using non-traditional medicine with (complementary), or instead of (alternative) traditional medicine. Integrative medicine is another term which is being adopted more narrowly by a lot of pretty big name traditional healthcare facilities (Cleveland Clinic & Mayo, for example) which offer CAM alongside traditional care.

You summed up my feelings perfectly in just a few words. Thank you.

I will from this time forward use:"pseudo-scientific claptrap, demented conspiracy and straight-up mysticism" in place of woo.

The only problem I have with this is that I tend to use the term "quackery" ... can I still use it?

When I call something "woo" I am sure as shit intentionally labeling it with a derisive name. I mean it to sound as insulting and demeaning as it does.

But my Astrologist AND my Tarot Card reader warned me of a bleak future if I continued. Upon hearing the news, I was so depressed that I had to cut off a lock of my hair and bury it in my backyard at midnight just to stop crying.

You're supposed to soak your hair in a tonic made of rainwater, horseradish and ground Japanese beetles before you bury it.

I'm surprised it even worked.

is "You will find something good in your life today". I found a Milky Way bar in between the car seats. Does that count as finding something good in my life? I think it does.

that term was on DU by a particular poster who kept using it over and over in OPs. It has caught on with some. I just wonder, did it exist before it showed up here?

It is a broad brush term that is not useful to any discussion. Maybe individual therapies would be better topics for discussion. Woo is in the mind of the beholder only.

But I don't know which is more helpful, beating people over the head with science and scaring them off or trying to be more embraceable sink some "real" science in there too. The latter seems like a lot of work to me but Neil Degrasse Tyson http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/ seems to do a good job. I look at it this way, if we want more critical thinkers we follow the religious plan of attack, chase them down and recruit them.

just a thought.

PS I personally love science, have been subscribed to Scientific American for years, I forget when the subscription started. A few stints of New Scientist , watch every fricken science show there is, personally can't wait for this: http://dangerousminds.net/comments/get_your_popcorn_ready_bill_nye_the_science_guy_to_debate_idiot_creation
and so on and so forth.



-p

I would use "Horseshit," but horses happen to be real, and "Unicornshit" just... just sounds wrong.

And the other factor is that people apply the term to practitioners who are widely accepted by MD's.

For example, one of the woo-phobic people here today put osteopaths in that category. Osteopaths get four years of standard medical school training before adding on the osteopathic manipulations. They are licensed to practice medicine in all 50 states and hired by the military, the VA, and private practices of MD's all over the country.

When I was pregnant years ago, I had a fever and a cough and my OB didn't want me in his office. He said I should go to my Family Practice doc. Well, that practice didn't have any appointments available for three days -- and I was getting sicker by the hour. So I called the OB back and he gave me the name of an osteopath who had openings because she'd just set up her practice. He told me she had all the standard medical training, and she did. She diagnosed my pneumonia and got me started on antibiotics. She said if I'd waited for three more days I'd have probably ended up in the hospital. She turned out to be a caring, highly competent doctor, and so I switched practices. (I was upset that my Family Practice office wouldn't fit me in even though I had had pneumonia before, so they knew the risk.) The only reason I'm not with the osteopath now is that she eventually moved to another town. Her care was just as good as any PC physician I've had.

My son also went to an osteopath once, because his regular pediatrician wasn't available, and the osteopath was part of the practice. It turns out that the osteopath was the perfect doctor for his excruciating pain -- a couple quick "adjustments" and he was instantly better. And the doc gave him exercises to do to prevent the spinal misalignment (a result of his fast growth) from reoccurring.

But the name-callers around here say people who go to osteopaths -- and the M.D.'s who recommend and employ them -- are falling for "woo."