The Brights! A new classification. [Archive I]

Shake

June 13, 2003, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by Autonemesis
Originally posted by wildernesse
Yes, but you can't just arbitrarily change a word's meaning and expect all of the connotations that it previously had to disappear like fog on a sunny day. That's nonsense. Good thing you didn't say "That's gay" or "That's queer." :D

It will be very interesting to hear bigots distance themselves from atheists and homosexuals in the future.

"I'm not gay, and I'm not bright either. " :notworthy LOL! Damn! I'm glad I wasn't drinking something when I read this. Oooh! Look! Nested quotes ... cool!

Thank you, Autonemesis. Unfortunately, my brain can't latch on to other examples right now (I'll probably think of something in an hour or two), but "gay" and "queer" are good examples of words whose meanings have been changed. Oh, if you're talking about slang, "bad" has come to mean good! Look at Back to the Future where Marty keeps using the word "heavy" in a way that doesn't mean physically weighty, which confuses Doc no end.

Yeah, I know, labels are labels. But not only can the meaning be changed, but associations can be changed too. No, I know it's not easy. Many people still see "gay" in a negative light. But I think many atheists would be ecstatic if the word "atheist" was as accepted as "gay" is now! We've got our work cut out for us, that's for sure. But the blacks, and the gays have paved the way and shown us it can be done. I've seen the saying, "A closed mind is a dangerous thing." We've got to open peoples' minds. Sure, some will only open so much, but once someone truly opens up, then they see that discrimination against atheists is no better than discrimination against blacks, women, homosexuals, or any other group that's different from them.

Alright, I've could go on, but I'm gonna cut this here, and get back to work.

wildernesse

June 13, 2003, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by Autonemesis
Good thing you didn't say "That's gay" or "That's queer." :D

It will be very interesting to hear bigots distance themselves from atheists and homosexuals in the future.

"I'm not gay, and I'm not bright either. "

Gay and queer are not arbitrary changes.

gay
1 a : happily excited : MERRY b : keenly alive and exuberant : having or inducing high spirits
2 a : BRIGHT, LIVELY <gay sunny meadows> b : brilliant in color
3 : given to social pleasures; also : LICENTIOUS
4 a : HOMOSEXUAL b : of, relating to, or used by homosexuals <the gay rights movement> <a gay bar>
synonym see LIVELY
- gay adverb
- gay�ness noun

and
queer
1 a : WORTHLESS, COUNTERFEIT <queer money> b : QUESTIONABLE, SUSPICIOUS
2 a : differing in some odd way from what is usual or normal b (1) : ECCENTRIC, UNCONVENTIONAL (2) : mildly insane : TOUCHED c : absorbed or interested to an extreme or unreasonable degree : OBSESSED d usually disparaging : HOMOSEXUAL
3 : not quite well
synonym see STRANGE

These meanings of words for homosexual are related to words that described how homosexuals were/are viewed (licentious, suspicious, unconventional). I'd argue that this is not an arbitrary assignment of meaning.

Edited to add: I also note that in your bigot's statement, you *ARE* using the word bright with the connotations that I'm objecting to.

--tibac

Toto

June 13, 2003, 02:38 PM

Both 'gay' and 'queer' were terms that originally had derogatory meanings, that were taken over and used as badges of honor. The Gay Liberation Front did not just decide to be "smart" or something else and try to hijack an existing word. They rejected the term 'homosexual' for ordinary use because it sounded too clinical.

If atheists were to do something comparable, we would call ourselves Infidels or Heathens, something playful and subversive. 'Atheist', like 'homosexual', sounds too clinical and has too much baggage attached to it.

MortalWombat

June 13, 2003, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by Toto
Both 'gay' and 'queer' were terms that originally had derogatory meanings, that were taken over and used as badges of honor.Technically, their "original" meanings were quite ordinary.

Rhea

June 13, 2003, 03:52 PM

I personally like Infidel and Heathen for the reasons proposed by Toto.

girlwriter

June 13, 2003, 04:27 PM

I absolutely agree with wildernesse and toto. Bright is way too loaded. It doesn't matter what the website says, because most people will never read it. If I go calling myself a Bright around my friends and accquaintances, I know exactly what the reaction will be. They will, with good reason, feel that I am being arrogant. The label implies "I'm clever and you're not," not matter what I want it to imply. If we want to turn the tables and give atheism a posative association, as homosexuals have with queer/gay, then we need to change people's perception of who we are, not the words we use to describe ourselves. Trying to set ourselves apart by implying that we're smarter than everyone else will not help. It's arrogant and closed-minded, IMO.

People need to know who we are, not what we are. Only then will people be able to replace thier inaccurate, negative stereotypes with real information.

Infidel works great, and we're already well on our way towards what homosexuals did with "gay."

Besides, 'bright' does sound fluffy, cultish and farnkly, pretty goofy. I won't be calling myself a bright, and I *know* my husband won't. Sounds like a line of dolls for preteen girls to me. Or maybe a new age religion.

girlwriter

June 13, 2003, 04:59 PM

OK, I just read the site, and no offense, Shake, but I don't feel that it's very well thought out at all. Their rationalization for the word is that there is nothing better. Bull. Naturalistic would be better, according to their own definition. "I'm a naturalistic." That would be more accurate than bright, and lacks the connotaion (and the denotation) that bright carries.

They say that bright doesn't mean what people think it means, because they're arbitrarily assigning a new meaning to it. Great. It will only work with other brights, then and in that case it's not needed. It's already been pointed out that you can't arbitrarily change a word's meaning. It's already been pointed out that what homosexuals did with the word gay is completely different.

And I'm sorry, but they never get aroundf to explaining just how they decided on 'bright' in the first place. There is only one rational reason to use that particular word as opposed to any other arbitrarily chosen word (like maybe, oh, let's say, Dim. We're dims. No, that would make people think we're dumb. Ok, how about...) They seem to be saying that the word is happy and light, and therefore a good way to introduce a posative association with atheism. (OK, "daisy" is a happy word. Why not "I'm a daisy" A what?! "A daisy." No, that won't work, how about...)

The fact is, it's not arbitrary. These people chose this word because of it's meanings, both connotative and denotative. They clearly want (subconsciously at the very least) to infer that they are bright (clever, shining examples), and non-brights are not. I'm sure these are fine people with good intentions, but attempting to set ourselves apart in this manner isn't going to help our cause at all.

ashe

June 13, 2003, 05:06 PM

I'll just throw in my two cents here.

As an atheist and skeptic, there is absolutely no way I would ever refer to myself as a 'Bright' in public conversation.

As much as the people on that site seem to think they can change the definition of the word, Bright is too loaded to be used in reference to oneself.

I wince just thinking about it.

I don't care how many 'bright' people suggested Bright; it is a bad idea and we need to come up with a better word.

Try again!

Kevbo

June 13, 2003, 05:48 PM

I'd much rather surprise someone with a hearty answer like "I'm a damned Infidel" than a confusing answer like "I'm a Bright."

Queen of Swords

June 13, 2003, 06:38 PM

This reminds me of L. Ron Hubbard and his Clears.

NonHomogenized

June 13, 2003, 06:38 PM

I have to agree with others who have said that most people aren't going to give a flying piece of monkey dookie what we *want* it to mean, or what some website says it means. It sounds extremely arrogant - nearly as much so as things like "you really believe in god, you just don't want to admit it". Infidel (and heathen, for that matter) has a historical negative connotation, but self-identification as such sort of takes out any bite it has left. Plus, it sounds cool. Really, would you rather be saying "I'm a bright", or "I'm an infidel". "Bright" just doesn't have the same ring to it.

Just my $.02, adjusted for inflation.:cool:

GunnerJ

June 13, 2003, 07:30 PM

LAME.

ashe

June 13, 2003, 08:09 PM

Just look at 'hacker'.

Cipher Girl

June 13, 2003, 08:17 PM

Bright sounds so damned goofy. I rather be call that damned Heathen or Infidel. Hell I'd rather be called an Atheist than a "Bright". I actually don't have a problem of calling myself an Atheist. Perhaps if we used the word more, we wouldn't have to try new ones.

Autonemesis

June 13, 2003, 08:26 PM

Originally posted by Toto
Both 'gay' and 'queer' were terms that originally had derogatory meanings, that were taken over and used as badges of honor. The Gay Liberation Front did not just decide to be "smart" or something else and try to hijack an existing word.

Doesn't mean atheists wouldn't succeed in getting it to stick. After all, I'm pretty sure some of us are in advertising. ;)

ashe

June 13, 2003, 08:45 PM

Yea.. I like atheist. If you need to elaborate on the meaning of atheist that is fine.

Take Christian for example. It has many meanings; there are Catholics and Protestants.. and then innumerable subdivisions of those.

Similarly atheism can be a general term with specific subgroups.

AquaVita

June 13, 2003, 09:00 PM

From the site...

The Brights' umbrella is large, very large. For example, Brights can be agnostics, rationalists, skeptics, atheists, objectivists, igtheists, and so on.

What the hell is an igtheist?

Cipher Girl

June 15, 2003, 12:50 AM

Igtheist - perhaps an atheist iguana?

Javaman

June 15, 2003, 09:08 AM

I can only find three examples while googling igtheist but I'd say someone just made it up... funny thing that. I'd guess what they did was (changing it to "igtheism" to make it easier on me):

i- (same as in- used for negation)
-g- (from gno- to know which should be very familiar here)
-theism (a belief in a deity)
So igtheism = no knowledge of a deity.

Typically we see stuff like this in 'ignorant' but I'm not sure that, etymologically speaking, it's kosher to use 'g' for 'gno' but I have no idea. I have a background in geology so I keep thinking it should have something to do with fire (igneous) which would make an igtheist a burning believer and that's just cruel.

Queen of Swords

June 15, 2003, 10:32 AM

Igtheist - a theist who lives in a little ice hut.

WinAce

June 17, 2003, 12:00 AM

I have to say this is probably the dumbest idea I've ever read on an atheist website. Why not just call ourselves the Eloi and our theistic friends the Morlocks and be done with it if we wanna be condescending? ;)

vagrant

June 17, 2003, 12:38 PM

Originally posted by Cipher Girl
Bright sounds so damned goofy. I rather be call that damned Heathen or Infidel. Hell I'd rather be called an Atheist than a "Bright". I actually don't have a problem of calling myself an Atheist. Perhaps if we used the word more, we wouldn't have to try new ones.

:notworthy

Hear hear!

gcameron

June 17, 2003, 02:58 PM

I will never call myself a "bright." It seems to imply that I am smarter than the average theist, yet I have known many theists who are smarter than I am.

Of course, when homosexuals appropriated the word "gay" (note, I don't know the etymological history of this usage, whether it was conscious and organized or not) the same objection could have been made: heterosexuals are certainly capable of being "gayer" (in the original meaning of that word) than the average homosexual. So there is precedent.

But I still will not use "bright." It just sounds dumb. And arrogant.

I am an atheist. That is a *neutral* term. It describes nothing about me except for my lack of belief in gods. If some morons want to translate it in their mind as "baby-eating evil satanist," that is their problem, not mine.

clark

June 17, 2003, 03:15 PM

I have heard the Bright presentation three times, most recently this past weekend, and am behind it. Although this is a blatant "appeal to authority", many of the atheists I most respect are behind it: Richard Dawkins, James Randi, Michael Shermer and Daniel Dennett. Dawkins is very gung-ho behind it and personally contacted Dennett. Dennett put together his own presentation promoting it at a recent science conference.

If you just hear the concept without Paul Geisert's and Mynga Futrell's presentation, it first sounds lame. The presentation makes a good case. If they have the powerpoint files on the website, they're worth looking at.

I don't know if it will catch on, but it's the best linguistic idea I've heard in this regard. It's monosyllabic and slogan-friendly. It's not really coopting an existing word, as Bright is a noun and the current use of bright is only an adjective. Bright is not meant as a replacent for other words, but a linguistically positive unifying term.

I've seen others attempt to offer "better" words than Bright. A better word, IMO, would also have to be monosyllabic and not linguistically negative (Atheist, NONbeliever, INfidel, godLess, etc.).

THOUGHTfully Yours,
Clark

GunnerJ

June 17, 2003, 03:28 PM

I've seen others attempt to offer "better" words than Bright. A better word, IMO, would also have to be monosyllabic and not linguistically negative (Atheist, NONbeliever, INfidel, godLess, etc.).

No, no, you miss the whole point. Being "monosylabic" is irrelevent. Those words instantly beat out "the Brights" because they don't sound so goddamn stupid.

When I hear the term "Bright" as a label, I instantly get the mental image of someone skipping around in a shiny white tunic and wearing a lightbulb-shaped hat. "I'm a Bright!" (s)he chirps, smiling like some junkie mid-high. I can almost see the needle marks.

Queen of Swords

June 17, 2003, 03:37 PM

Maybe a gay atheist could be called a Rainbow Bright (http://www.80schildren.com/television/rainbowbrite.htm).

clark

June 17, 2003, 03:41 PM

wildernesse

June 17, 2003, 04:25 PM

I sEcretly atheists, those sLum-lOrds and bAby-eaters. They are all wAlk and are wHite sPeak. One day, I was walking to the mailbox, and I saw my atheist neighbor hOtly his cHildren. Then, he looked at me and bOttle, "You're nExt!"

I made up some new words for concepts that we all know, and IMO they're much better! I didn't coopt many existing words--I mean sEcretly is a verb, and the current use, secretly, is only an adverb. What, you mean you can't understand me? Hey! sLum-lOrd and bAby-eaters don't have negative connotations! Because I say so, and many of the best sLowly fAsters are behind it!

--tibac, who, by the way, is a beautiful millionaire

RufusAtticus

June 17, 2003, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by clark
I have heard the Bright presentation three times, most recently this past weekend, and am behind it. Although this is a blatant "appeal to authority", many of the atheists I most respect are behind it: Richard Dawkins, James Randi, Michael Shermer and Daniel Dennett.

Once again we see that being an atheist, even a famous one, doesn't make you bright.

Dawkins is very gung-ho behind it and personally contacted Dennett. Dennett put together his own presentation promoting it at a recent science conference.

Since when was "atheist identification" a topic of a science conference?

I don't know if it will catch on, but it's the best linguistic idea I've heard in this regard. It's monosyllabic and slogan-friendly.

Oh slogans!
Those Brights ain't right.
Fight the Brights.
Don't give those Brights rights.
We want the Brights out of our sights.
Brights, fear our might!
Brights lack insight.
Brights have no light.
Brights need the light.
No Brights in a fight.
Brights bite.

Yes, slogan-friendly is a good thing.

It's not really coopting an existing word, as Bright is a noun and the current use of bright is only an adjective.

So "Bright" was generated by a random word generator and it just happens to coincide with an existing word. Right. . . .

Bright is not meant as a replacent for other words, but a linguistically positive unifying term.

WTF does that mean?

I've seen others attempt to offer "better" words than Bright. A better word, IMO, would also have to be monosyllabic and not linguistically negative (Atheist, NONbeliever, INfidel, godLess, etc.).

What about "secular?" Isn't that a nonnegative linguistic term?

BigBadShrubbery

June 17, 2003, 04:37 PM

I really love the word "Infidel", and "Bright" just doesn't sound right (no pun intended).

girlwriter

June 17, 2003, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by GunnerJ
No, no, you miss the whole point. Being "monosylabic" is irrelevent. Those words instantly beat out "the Brights" because they don't sound so goddamn stupid.

When I hear the term "Bright" as a label, I instantly get the mental image of someone skipping around in a shiny white tunic and wearing a lightbulb-shaped hat. "I'm a Bright!" (s)he chirps, smiling like some junkie mid-high. I can almost see the needle marks.

LOL, Gunner! LOL. :notworthy

This "because it is a noun and the current use is a verb" claptrap is absolutely inane. Come on. Bright is a verb. You cannot just decide it's a noun with a completely different meaning and have it be true. Language is what people understand it to be. You cannot arbitrarily make up a new meaning for a word. I don't give a damn *who* is behind it, Bright! is a lame attempt to try to associate non-theists with intellegence and cleverness. Why else would they pick *this particular word* out of millions on mono-syllibic words to arbitrarily assign a new meaning to? I don't care what the power point slides say. Are they going to show them to the whole damn world?

The situation with gay is NOT the same. Gay is a word that was generally associated with homosexuality *by everyone else* long before it's connotaion was changed from a negative one to a posative one. I didn't happen arbitrarily either. They did it the hard way by getting out there and showing the world that they exist, and showing their pride in who they were.

clark

June 17, 2003, 05:06 PM

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Since when was "atheist identification" a topic of a science conference?

I believe it was a skeptics/science conference. Mynga Futrell (TheBrightsNet@aol.com) can give more details. Dennett corresponded with her before putting together the presentation.

Oh slogans!
Those Brights ain't right.
Fight the Brights.
Don't give those Brights rights.
We want the Brights out of our sights.
Brights, fear our might!
Brights lack insight.
Brights have no light.
Brights need the light.
No Brights in a fight.
Brights bite.

Yes, slogan-friendly is a good thing.

Slogans can go both ways, as it has with gay. From Fred Phelps' "GAY = Got AIDS Yet" to the proud slogan "Gay Pride". I'd rather have a slogan-friendly term regardless if it can be used negatively by detractors.

So "Bright" was generated by a random word generator and it just happens to coincide with an existing word. Right. . . .

Of course not. It's a word with no negative connotations and no current noun use.

WTF does that mean?

By "linquistically positive", I mean that most words we have to identify ourselves negations - A-theist, non-theist, god-less, in-fidel, etc. The words that are linguistically positve are bit esoteric (humanist, metaphysical naturalist). Bright is not meant to replace these words, but provide a simple umbrella for them.

What about "secular?" Isn't that a nonnegative linguistic term?

I like secular, but it has one problem. It is used in two different meanings, often without clear distinction. First, "the United States has a secular government" means the US is religiously neutral and doesn't favor one religion over another religion or no religion. Under the current administration, this is becoming less true, but that's another issue :). Second, "Paul Kurtz is a secular humanist" means that Kurtz lives a non-spiritually without religion. The religious right has used this effectively to convince people that a secular govermnent is hostile to religion.

THOUGHTfully Yours,
Clark

clark

June 17, 2003, 05:28 PM

Originally posted by girlwriter

The situation with gay is NOT the same. Gay is a word that was generally associated with homosexuality *by everyone else* long before it's connotaion was changed from a negative one to a posative one. I didn't happen arbitrarily either. They did it the hard way by getting out there and showing the world that they exist, and showing their pride in who they were.

Actually, the situation is very similar. The connotation of "gay" was always positive, but it meant happy or joyous before it had anything to do with sexual preference.

Now, the primary definition of gay has to do with sexual preference, due to the gays' using the word with pride. From http://www.bartleby.com/61/45/G0064500.html :
The word gay is now standard in its use to refer to homosexuals, in large part because it is the term that most gay people prefer in referring to themselves. Gay is distinguished from homosexual primarily by the emphasis it places on the cultural and social aspects of homosexuality as opposed to sexual practice.

It wasn't associated with sexual preference by the general public until the 1960s and 1970s. The theme from the Flinstones ends with "we'll have a gay old time". If they wrote a theme for it today, they would probably reword it or Jerry Falwell would complain.

Today the connotation of gay is both positive and negative: positive from gays and negative from viewers of the 700 Club.

The struggles of the secular community are often compared with those of the gay community. I think we could have success with "Bright" as they have had success with "gay".

THOUGHTfully Yours,
Clark

GunnerJ

June 17, 2003, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by clark
A few decades ago, you could have pretty much said the same thing about "gay".

THOUGHTfully Yours,
Clark

The difference being: someone who was against gays would have said it, a gay person probably wouldn't have. As I am someone who would qualify as a "Bright" the situation becomes a little, how shall we put it, different.

Edit: I believe girlwriter put it better than I did. My comment is criticism from the inside. You can't compare the old use of "gay" as a slur to this.

GunnerJ

June 17, 2003, 05:46 PM

The struggles of the secular community are often compared with those of the gay community. I think we could have success with "Bright" as they have had success with "gay".

I shudder at the very thought. I'm not going to go around identifying myself as a "Bright" just because people are too dumb (supposedly) to understand the meaning of "metaphysical naturalist" or "humanist."

I mean, really, is this not a case of jumping into the fire to avoid the frying pan? "Bright" sounds like a term used by some new age cult to describe members who have chemically castrated themselves and given their life savings to the cult leader, and are therefore eligable to be picked up by the mother ship (read: poisoned koolaid).

I'm sorry, but I cannot imagine myself using the term "bright" to describe my beliefs without feeling a bit stupid.

clark

June 17, 2003, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by GunnerJ
The difference being: someone who was against gays would have said it, a gay person probably wouldn't have. As I am someone who would qualify as a "Bright" the situation becomes a little, how shall we put it, different].

Although there is some disagreement of the etymology of the word gay, earlier there were homosexuals who refused to use the term. Gradually, the term became more accepted. Novelist Gertrude Stein begin to use it in the 1920s and it became used more widely in the homosexual community. After Stonewall and the maturation of the gay rights movement, it became a universally used term.

As for the atheist/freethought community, we'll never totally agree on anything. If two atheists agree on 98% of things, they're likely to almost come to blows over the 2% they disagree on :). None of the words used now is anywhere near universally accepted. It's the old "herding cats" metaphor.

THOUGHTfully Yours,
Clark

girlwriter

June 17, 2003, 06:08 PM

No, clark, it is not the same.

Homosexuals did not arbitrarily choose a word out of nowhere that no one associated with homosexuality and start using it to refer to themselves in an attempt to garner posative associations with that word for homosexuals.

What they did is do the *work* of demonstrating to the general public that they exist, they aren't going anywhere, they are human beings with the same rights and emotions and diversity of personality as everyone else. Only then did the word 'gay' have a posative association. It has to be earned.

clark

June 17, 2003, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by girlwriter
No, clark, it is not the same.

Homosexuals did not arbitrarily choose a word out of nowhere that no one associated with homosexuality and start using it to refer to themselves in an attempt to garner posative associations with that word for homosexuals.

What they did is do the *work* of demonstrating to the general public that they exist, they aren't going anywhere, they are human beings with the same rights and emotions and diversity of personality as everyone else. Only then did the word 'gay' have a posative association. It has to be earned.

The word gay as we think of it evolved as an alternative use of an existing word, as "bright" would. Fifty years ago ago, if someone said they were gay, 99 times out of 100, they meant happy. It was positive then; its predominant use was to mean happy. More homosexuals used the term to identify themselves and used it proudly. Many "came out of the closet" and proudly showed they exist. Many in the straight community, particularly in journalism and entertainment, embraced them. Others in the straight community resisted, and viewed them negatively.

I'd like us to learn from the successes of the gay community in gaining societal acceptance. I see "bright" as potentially a step in this direction.

THOUGHTfully Yours,
Clark

RufusAtticus

June 17, 2003, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by clark
Of course not. It's a word with no negative connotations and no current noun use.

Except for the negative connotation that if you're not a Bright then you're a "Dull." This of course produces the negative connontation of arrogance.

Are you seriously willing to use a term to describe yourself that implies that coworkers, friends, and family are not bright?

Besides the argument that "it's a noun" is senseless because it ignores the process by which English constructs nouns that refer to groups of people, i.e. it turns adjectives that describe those people into nouns that refer to those people. Therefore, it is impossible to disconnect the noun Bright from the adjective "bright." And I have no illusions that the originators of the noun "Bright" to refer to themselves were doing anything differently than is typical in English. They have just either lied to themselves or are lying to the rest of us.

clark

June 17, 2003, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Except for the negative connotation that if you're not a Bright then you're a "Dull." This of course produces the negative connontation of arrogance.

Are you seriously willing to use a term to describe yourself that implies that coworkers, friends, and family are not bright?

I don't think this really is any more of an issue than a gay person implying that non-gay people are not "happy".

Besides the argument that "it's a noun" is senseless because it ignores the process by which English constructs nouns that refer to groups of people, i.e. it turns adjectives that describe those people into nouns that refer to those people. Therefore, it is impossible to disconnect the noun Bright from the adjective "bright." And I have no illusions that the originators of the noun "Bright" to refer to themselves were doing anything differently than is typical in English. They have just either lied to themselves or are lying to the rest of us.

English is a uniquely diverse language. There are many words which have different meanings depending on which part of speech is used ("hip" and "cool" come to my mind, but I'm sure there are better examples).

The originators address some of these criticisms here (http://www.the-brights.net/faq_criticism.htm).

THOUGHTfully Yours,
Clark

RufusAtticus

June 17, 2003, 06:41 PM

Originally posted by clark
I don't think this really is any more of an issue than a gay person implying that non-gay people are not "happy".

Did you miss the part of the thread where "gay" was not applied to homsexual because they were seen to be happy, but because they were seen to be licentious?

English is a uniquely diverse language. There are many words which have different meanings depending on which part of speech is used ("hip" and "cool" come to my mind, but I'm sure there are better examples).

"He doth protest to much, methinks." What does this have to do with the fact that it is a standard practice in English to use adjective that describe people as nouns refering to them? You can claim that that is not being done here, but most English speakers will not see it that way. Thus "Brights" have an even greater publicity problem than people who think "atheist = satan worshiper." And in fact they look very silly trying to deny the connection.

I'm sorry but when I think of people using the word "Bright" to refer to themselves, I either think they are extremely arrogant or are actually not that bright and think that calling themselves "Bright" enough times will make it true.

clark

June 17, 2003, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Did you miss the part of the thread where "gay" was not applied to homsexual because they were seen to be happy, but because they were seen to be licentious?

That's partially true. The etymology of "gay" is quite complex. The use to mean homosexual was used primarily by other homosexuals, not by straights. The religious tolerance website has a summary of various uses of the term throught historyhere (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_term.htm).

"He doth protest to much, methinks." What does this have to do with the fact that it is a standard practice in English to use adjective that describe people as nouns refering to them? You can claim that that is not being done here, but most English speakers will not see it that way. Thus "Brights" have an even greater publicity problem than people who think "atheist = satan worshiper." And in fact they look very silly trying to deny the connection.

The reason for selecting "Bright" as a term was a connection to the enlightenment. It was not meant to imply that non-Brights are dumb. I don't think there will be a publicity problem.

THOUGHTfully Yours,
Clark

girlwriter

June 18, 2003, 02:20 AM

Gay was associated with homosexuals BEFORE homosexuals gave it a posative association.

Homosexuals did *NOT* erase other people's negative associations with homosexuality by calling themselves gay and changing the meaning of the word. They did it by being out, being persistent, and showing the world that they did not represent the pervasive negative stereotypes about homosexuality.

If atheists wish to engender posative feelings of others, then we have to do it by being out, being persistent, and showing the world that we do not live up to the pervasive negative stereotypes about atheism.

This will not happen if we go around implying to others that we are enlightend and they are, by definition, unenlightened. They will resent us.

Furthermore, you clearly do not have buyoff from the atheist community (such as it is,) because bright sounds stupid and arrogant. I do not want to be associated with this silly term. Neither do the good, THOUGHTFUL people on this thread who have deconstructed your arguments repeatedly. Please do not go around telling people that we wish to be called brights. It's embarassing. Half my friends and family already think I'm a poor lost soul because I don't have Gawd, and this will just push them over the edge.

dunadan

June 18, 2003, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by QueenofSwords
This reminds me of L. Ron Hubbard and his Clears.

Hey, just imagine, a Clear and Bright marraige! They would have a baby window cleaner!

openeyes

June 18, 2003, 11:08 AM

I think I signed up to be a "Bright" weeks ago, but among some atheists I know in my area, the reaction was similar to most of what's been expressed here, that the term doesn't work for them. I think it's a designation that can work in some instances.

clark

June 18, 2003, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by girlwriter
Gay was associated with homosexuals BEFORE homosexuals gave it a posative association.

Gay was NOT associated with homosexuality before homosexuals gave it a "posative association" (sic). There was an earlier association with brothels and promiscuity, but it was not about sexual preference.

Homosexuals did *NOT* erase other people's negative associations with homosexuality by calling themselves gay and changing the meaning of the word. They did it by being out, being persistent, and showing the world that they did not represent the pervasive negative stereotypes about homosexuality If atheists wish to engender posative feelings of others, then we have to do it by being out, being persistent, and showing the world that we do not live up to the pervasive negative stereotypes about atheism.

I certainly agree that more atheists, agnostics, etc. need to "come out" and be persistent as the gay community did. I think that is happening, as evidenced by the dramatic increase in nonreligious people noted in the 2001 ARIS survey. We still, of course, have a long way to go. I think for us, the change will be more evolutionary, whereas for gays it was more revolutionary.

This will not happen if we go around implying to others that we are enlightend and they are, by definition, unenlightened. They will resent us.

Again, I don't see this as any more of an issue than a gay person implying a straight person is, by definition, not happy.

Furthermore, you clearly do not have buyoff from the atheist community (such as it is,)

I don't know what a "buyoff from the atheist community" would entail, especially as of 30-40 million nonreligious people in the US, maybe 50,000 to 100,000 are associated with any atheistic organization, local or national. I do know that the first Bright presentation was made at the Coalition for the Community of Reason (http://www.communityofreason.org) meeting a few months ago. Leaders from several national atheist and humanist organiztion were there and reacted very positively to "Bright". It was the first time I had heard the term, and it grew on me.

because bright sounds stupid and arrogant. I do not want to be associated with this silly term. Neither do the good, THOUGHTFUL people on this thread who have deconstructed your arguments repeatedly. Please do not go around telling people that we wish to be called brights. It's embarassing. Half my friends and family already think I'm a poor lost soul because I don't have Gawd, and this will just push them over the edge.

You, like anyone on IIDB or elsewhere, can call yourself whatever you like. I disagree that any or my arguments have been "deconstructed". If someone disagrees with "Bright", fine, don't use it. With the momentum "Bright" has gotten, with acceptance by CCR groups and the acceptance and promotion by such atheistic luminaries as Dawkins, Shermer, Randi and Dennett, I think the term has a good chance of catching on.

THOUGHTfully Yours,
Clark

David M. Payne

June 18, 2003, 07:49 PM

I have a feeling that much of this conversation was mirrored in the homosexual community when they started to use the word "Gay" to describe themselves way back when. Personally I have looked over the web site, and found I to be as good a word as any to encompass the many facets of being a freethinking, naturalistic, agnostic etc person. Can those that want to dismiss us anyway misinterpret it? You bet. But that can happen with any word that tries to do what they try to do with "Bright," such is life.

I think that the English language is one that has over the centuries had many thousands of words that changed meanings, or had new meanings added to old words. If you read the whole web site you get the feeling that a good deal of thought went into the selection of the word "Bright" as a word that would be a big tent for all of us that are in the secular, freethinking, atheist, agnostic, naturalistic etc community. (They point out that "secular" has bad connotations with many religious groups now, who consider it to mean anti religious.)

So, perhaps those of you here who find the word distasteful can come up with a better one that does what they are trying to do on that "Bright" web site. After all, one thing I know is that there are many bright people here, aren�t there? And while you ponder that, don't forget to keep a little of the sense of humor about you, OK?

BRIGHTfully yours, ;) (Hi Clark)

David

David M. Payne

June 19, 2003, 12:29 AM

Hmm, I had the last post, but the board says Clark did. Must be more of the problems with our server. I know that when I tried to post my last post, I got the busy beat it page. Perhaps that has something to do with it.

Damn, I've seen a couple of typos in my last post, that wasn't too "bright" of me but it's too late now.

David

Toto

June 19, 2003, 02:08 AM

Someone's been reading this thread. (Rebecca Philipps?)

The Beliefnet weblog (http://www.beliefnet.com/frameset.asp?pageLoc=/story/122/story_12259_1.html&storyID=12259&boardID=53216) {scroll down to A Bright Unto the World?}

The comments seem familiar, although I'm not going to search the thread to be sure.

d'naturalist

June 19, 2003, 02:13 AM

Oh, for cryin' out loud. I go all lurky for a few months and look what happens! New age secularism.

Sorry Brights, but if you're going to "invent" a word, why not just actually invent a word: like Lorns or Nirths or Flazs? I wish you folks the best of luck with that whole thing, but it'll never work for me. The whole "I'm Bright and you're not" thing aside, when I read the term "Bright", the first thing that came to mind was the Fabio-led cult from "BubbleBoy".

I guess I'm just an old-fashioned guy who likes technically accurate terms. As you can guess from my screenname, I'm a "naturalist". Plain & simple. Technically accurate terminology with no negative connotations. The only problem I've ever had using the term "naturalist" are those poor, misguided folks who confuse "naturalist" (meaning one who believes in the primacy of the natural world, studies the natural order of things, or depicts the natural world without alteration or interpretation in art) with "naturists" (brave folks who like to run around nekkid). Personally, I find the confusion entertaining. It's hard to be uppity & condescending when the other person has to correct your misconceptions at the beginning of the conversation.

Still, it'll be interesting to observe the Bright's plight.

~
Todd (not my real name, but how could I resist?)

King Rat

June 19, 2003, 09:23 AM

I'da called 'em Chaswozzers.

GunnerJ

June 19, 2003, 10:28 AM

So, perhaps those of you here who find the word distasteful can come up with a better one that does what they are trying to do on that "Bright" web site. After all, one thing I know is that there are many bright people here, aren�t there? And while you ponder that, don't forget to keep a little of the sense of humor about you, OK?

The problem is, you think you've put some sort of gauntlet down that all the people who are against the use of the term "Bright" have to answer: "Haha, can't come up with a better term, can you?"

The really important part is not "can you come up with a better term," but "...that does what they are trying to do on that 'Bright' web site." The fact is, no. And I don't care, because what they are trying to do-- come up with a "monosylabic, linguistically positive" term for what we all are-- is irrelevent to me. The only criteria I see as important in using a term to describe my beliefs is that it:

1) is accurate, and
2) doesn't make me feel like an idiot to use.

"Humanist" is a good term, "infidel" is better, because of it's delightful subversive factor (remember that "sense of humor" thing?). I couldn't give two shits less if neither is monosylabic, as I don't redefine myself for people too dumb to understand "big words." Nor could I care less if one of them is "linguistically negative." And I am very unimpressed by the argument that both have negative connotations: all the Bright advocates make comparisons to how the gay community gained acceptance, but the thing that they (gay people) did which impressed me most in this regard was when the took a term like "queer," which was intended as a slur, and adopted it, thus subverting its hateful meaning. It's the same with how young black men call each other "nigger," how my close friend can be "my nigga." It defangs the term of negative meanings.

But most important of all, I can call myself a humanist or an infidel with a straight face, without blushing, and without imagining a big, honking, lightbulb-shaped hat on my head. That is why "Bright" loses, and why I really am not concerned with the aims of the people who came up with "Bright" as a term to describe my beliefs.

Shake

June 19, 2003, 01:24 PM

Thank you, Clark and David M. Payne, for defending what I believe is an attempt to make things better for us non-believers. I have to admit that I was quite disheartened to see the reaction that this topic has gotten, and was thinking of requesting that it be closed.

I feel that this topic has been nitpicked to death ('gay used to mean happy' etc.). Look, everyone, these folks are trying to make a positive step and you're just all hung up on the word. There won't be any mandatory membership, so if you don't like it, don't use the term. But if they can put "bling-bling" in the dictionary, they can add a new meaning to 'Bright,' as a noun even.
Language has always changed and will continue to change. We would like to see Bright as a commonly accepted affirmative noun with which to refer to persons whose worldview is naturalistic. There's no such word for that concept right now.This quote comes from the site. It states a desire, not an order. This also answers the question about why not using "infidel" or "humanist." It's supposed to be an umbrella (to use their word) term. It can encompass humanists, atheists, etc. While you or I might be proud of the term "infidel" (a la "Internet Infidels"), and yes, I wear my II shirt proudly even, but you know it has a very negative connotation. Esp. in the Muslim world.

To me, it seems that many of you are either missing the point or choosing to ignore it. If it's the former, I hope you can at least see where they're coming from (I don't expect everyone to agree). If you're in the latter group, then I'll just say that you're not being very understanding.

*Shake now withdraws from his thread*

GunnerJ

June 19, 2003, 01:50 PM

I feel that this topic has been nitpicked to death ('gay used to mean happy' etc.). Look, everyone, these folks are trying to make a positive step and you're just all hung up on the word. There won't be any mandatory membership, so if you don't like it, don't use the term. But if they can put "bling-bling" in the dictionary, they can add a new meaning to 'Bright,' as a noun even.

I understand that they are suggesting something, not mandating it. But you started a discussion on this suggestion, and that means people are free to debate the pros and cons of it. So don't be all "hey, they're not holding a gun to your head or anything" just because most people dislike the term: whether "Bright" was a suggestion or an order was never at issue.

Also, I do not object to the term because of linguistic nitpicks. I object to it because it's a stupid term. It's completely based on my opinion.

This quote comes from the site. It states a desire, not an order. This also answers the question about why not using "infidel" or "humanist."

No, it doesn't. The word infidel doesn't mean "one with a naturalistic worldview," but neither does "Bright!" You're adding a meaning to an existing word, just as I could with the term infidel, and I could do so while maintaining my self-respect, which I can't say about using the term "Bright."

Also, the term "humanist," as I understand it, does include a naturalistic view of the world.

Also, it's a blatant lie for the site to say that there is no term for "persons whose worldview is naturalistic." That term is "naturalist," or, more formally, "metaphysical naturalist." I will not be persuaded by claims that these terms are "too big," as I have previously stated that I don't care.

It's supposed to be an umbrella (to use their word) term. It can encompass humanists, atheists, etc. While you or I might be proud of the term "infidel" (a la "Internet Infidels"), and yes, I wear my II shirt proudly even, but you know it has a very negative connotation. Esp. in the Muslim world.

As I have admitted. I know it has a negative connotation. That, coupled with the fact that it sounds less like some UFO-cult term, is why I like it better than "Bright:" it's subversive.

To me, it seems that many of you are either missing the point or choosing to ignore it. If it's the former, I hope you can at least see where they're coming from (I don't expect everyone to agree). If you're in the latter group, then I'll just say that you're not being very understanding.

Or maybe we understand all too well... and don't like the idea of skipping from one euphamism to another, trying to avoid the scorn of people who dislike what we think. Trying to co-opt the word "Bright" to mean "naturalist" just because it's "commonly accepted" and "affirmative" is cowardice, and embarassing cowardice at that. Why should I hide behind some touchy-feely term like "Bright?" I'm an infidel and a heretic and a humanist: I disavow gods, creeds, and superstition of all sorts, proclaiming the power of human beings to change the world. If someone dislikes that, tough. I'm not going to shrink back to some feel-good, embarassing-sounding buzzword just because of their bigotry. There very idea that I should do so, as the advocates of the "Bright" term seem to hold, assumes that there's something wrong with my view that needs to be "sugar-coated." That's BS, and that's the way I see it.

In any situation, this effort, like all euphamisms, is fundamentally misguided: trying to hide a supposedly unpleasent idea behind a pleasent word will soon taint that new word as well. As a case example, consider how the term "retarded" was replaced with "special." It won't work for very long.

RufusAtticus

June 19, 2003, 04:16 PM

Clark:
I don't think this really is any more of an issue than a gay person implying that non-gay people are not "happy".

And groups that call themselves "chosen" are not at all saying that other people are not chosen. Right. . . .

Gooch's dad

June 19, 2003, 04:35 PM

GunnerJ nailed it. The term is offered as a suggestion, and I agree with GunnerJ and others that it sounds silly. I would never call myself a "Bright". I'm quite happy calling myself an atheist.

girlwriter

June 20, 2003, 02:30 AM

Originally posted by Gooch's dad
GunnerJ nailed it. The term is offered as a suggestion, and I agree with GunnerJ and others that it sounds silly. I would never call myself a "Bright". I'm quite happy calling myself an atheist.

I'll second that!!

And I'll add that the stated purpose of this whole thing is to get the world to generally accept and understand the word bright to refer to naturalists in general. If, as you claim, the word is accepted and used as the word gay is, then we all would have to live with it. Clark, you said yourself that we'll get used to it eventually. So in a way it is something that's being forced on us. But I don't really think it will work, so I guess I should just let it go.

For the record, I DID read the websight. And I don't feel that the whole thing was well thought out at all. I don't give a rat's ass who came up with it. I am not missing the point. I understand very well what these people want to do. I just happen to feel that the whole thing is ill-concieved and poorly executed.

AquaVita

June 20, 2003, 10:18 AM

Upon further reading of the site, and this thread...I can safely say this is probably the stupidest, most moronic idea I've ever heard in my entire life. I am not exaggerating a bit here.

I mean really, "bright"?

As Gunner said, I picture some guy in a white robe flowing around a field of cyanide scented flowers.

I mean really...as it's already been said you can't go around making up words and assigning them arbitrary meanings. Not to mention they just plain seem to make up words as well.(igtheist...?)

If we are to earn any respect as a group of people, we'll have to do much better then that. It insults people's intelligence, their identities, and it insults the actual word BRIGHT.

I still don't see what's so wrong with "atheist" or "agnostic" to be honest. If people want to find a word with less baggage, then I'm all for suggestions. Just not crappy delusional ones like "The Brights!"

Deadend

June 21, 2003, 05:21 AM

Bright doesn't really translate into Dutch, accoording to my 'Van Dale English-Dutch Dictionary' it translates as:

bright� [ bra_t ]
    ( telbaar zelfstandig naamwoord )
        tipkwastje ( plat penseel om lichte plekken aan te brengen )

bright�
    ( niet-telbaar zelfstandig naamwoord; the )
    ( Amerikaans-Engels of formeel )
        de dag
                het daglicht

bright�
    ( altijd als meervoud: brights )
        'verstralers
                groot licht

brightg
    ( bijvoeglijk naamwoord; vergrotende trap: brighter; bijwoord: brightly; afleiding: brightness )
        1 hel(der) ( ook figuurlijk )
                licht, stralend, glanzend, fleurig, klaar
          context
                a bright future
                    een mooie / rooskleurige toekomst
                one of the brightest moments in the history of Europe
                    een van de meest glorieuze momenten in de geschiedenis van Europa
                bright as a new pin
                    zo helder als wat
                look on the bright side of things
                    de dingen van de zonzijde bezien, optimistisch blijven
        2 opgewekt
                opgeruimd, levendig, kwiek
          context
                bright and breezy
                    levenslustig, opgeruimd
                bright eyes
                    heldere / stralende ogen
        3 schrander
                snugger, vlug, pienter, intelligent
          context
                a bright idea
                    een slim idee
        idioom
                the bright lights
                    het uitgaanscentrum
                ( Brits-Engels; informeel; vaak ironisch ) a bright spark
                    een slimme kerel, een slimmerd, een groot licht

brighth
    ( bijwoord )
        helder
          context
                bright red
                    helderrood
                shine bright
                    helder schijnen
        idioom
                bright and early
                    voor dag en dauw, in alle vroegte, vroegtijdig, bijtijds That is; 'a brush, the day(light), a high-beam headlamp, clear, cheerful, clever' and 'entertainment district'. Though I may be tempted to call myself 'tipkwastje,' :D I think that, for now, I'll continue to call myself 'athe�st.'

Deadend

June 21, 2003, 05:24 AM

ooh, I also came across this Guardian article (http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,981412,00.html) by Richard Dawkins, relevant to this topic.

Silent Dave

June 21, 2003, 08:41 PM

Let's see, what are the objections to the word "Bright?"

1) It sounds stupid.

Yeah, it does. So does the word "gay." It makes one think of happy people dancing with stupid smiles on their faces, going "la la la la la" and sniffing flowers. For that matter, a lot of words sound stupid when you think about them. Pronounce the word "Law" about thirty times. Isn't it stupid?

2) It sounds condescending.

Yeah, it does. So does the word "gay." It implies that non-gay people are unhappy. This implication has been lost over time as the meaning of the word went from "happy" to "homosexual."

3) You can't force a word to become a catchphrase in a certain context.

That's right, you can't. All you can do is use the word yourself, explain to inquiring minds WHY you use the word, and encourage others to use the word as well. Otherwise, you have no say at all whether the word actually catches on.

4) It would create negative emotional baggage for the word "Bright."

It very well might. I would say that there was negative emotional baggage in the term "Jesus freak" as well. However, it's slowly becoming positive as more and more Christians are adopting it as a badge of pride. I don't know anyone today who would use the term negatively -- not out of politeness, but because the Christian would likely as not say, "Yes, I'm a Jesus freak, and I'm proud of it!"

5) There are already terms which define nonbelievers -- and more accurately, I might add.

Yes, there are. I believe that the term "homosexual" already defined homosexuals before the word "gay" came along, and more accurately I might add. Gay has caught on in popular usage. Try to get people to use "homosexual" instead.

6) Just about everyone else hates the idea.

This is true. But if you base your opinions primarily upon what everyone else thinks, then why the heck are you an atheist?

7) It will never catch on.

Indeed, there's a good chance that it will never catch on. It's in the birthing process right now, growing and expanding in the hopes of one day reaching the term of common usage. Thus, if you refuse to adopt the word because it will never catch on, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

8) But . . . but . . . it's just so STUPID!

So, according to the majority of people on IIDB, is libertarianism. I am a libertarian. I don't think it's stupid. I can see why many people disagree with the position, and I respect many of their anti-libertarian arguments. But like anyone would, I dismiss those arguments that simply say that it's STUPID. Even though libertarianism does suffer what seems to be a perpetual PR crisis, and even though all the it's-stupid arguments do impact it negatively and keep it from catching on, I simply don't consider them. Because really, what can you say to them?

Did I miss any?

Dave

GunnerJ

June 21, 2003, 10:22 PM

Did I miss any?

Well, you did a fine enough job listing the objections. I'm not sure how well you answered them, though.

1) It sounds stupid.

Yeah, it does. So does the word "gay." It makes one think of happy people dancing with stupid smiles on their faces, going "la la la la la" and sniffing flowers.

Actually, it doesn't make think of that. When i hear the word "gay," I think, depending on the context, of either homosexuality or happiness. "Bright" makes me think of a light, or cleverness. The idea of using the word "Bright" as an identifying term for a worldview makes me think of lightbulb-shaped-hat wearing cultists drinking cyanide-spiked Koolaid. Hence my dislike for the term.

For that matter, a lot of words sound stupid when you think about them. Pronounce the word "Law" about thirty times. Isn't it stupid?

I only have to think of people calling themselves "Brights" once to start giggling under my breath, so what's your point?

2) It sounds condescending.

Yeah, it does. So does the word "gay." It implies that non-gay people are unhappy. This implication has been lost over time as the meaning of the word went from "happy" to "homosexual."

Yes, it lost that connotation over time. Bright has not lost the "cleverness" connotation, so again, what was your point? :confused:

Part of the reason for the suggested introduction of the term "Bright" is PR: it's a positive, happy-sounding term that people will accept more eaily than "atheist." But given that many people already see atheists as smug know-it-alls, is this not somewhat counterproductive?

3) You can't force a word to become a catchphrase in a certain context.

That's right, you can't. All you can do is use the word yourself, explain to inquiring minds WHY you use the word, and encourage others to use the word as well. Otherwise, you have no say at all whether the word actually catches on.

Well, we can strongly object ot it, in hopes that other people it's supposed to describe will similarly object to it.

4) It would create negative emotional baggage for the word "Bright."

It very well might. I would say that there was negative emotional baggage in the term "Jesus freak" as well. However, it's slowly becoming positive as more and more Christians are adopting it as a badge of pride. I don't know anyone today who would use the term negatively -- not out of politeness, but because the Christian would likely as not say, "Yes, I'm a Jesus freak, and I'm proud of it!" "

I'll go out on a limb and say this is in response to my statement that "Bright" will eventually pick up the negative connotation of the terms it's suppsoed to be an umbrealla for. My point was that the use of the term Bright is a euphamism, and like other euphamisms, it's doomed to fail because eventually, whatever supposedly dirty thing it tries to cover up will be associated with it. I will be charitable and assume that you simply misunderstood me, and that you weren't building a strawman.

And on the point of negative terms becoming positives: if I wanted to be subversive, I'd do this with a term that already has negative connotations, like infidel or heretic. At least then I wouldn't feel like a damn fool. I mean, are you seriously trying to argue against my point about Bright being a doomed euphamism by saying that it will eventually become subversive because of its negative connotations? Wasn't your goal to make a positively connotated umbrealla term? So you want to make a new positive term so it will gain negative connotations so you can use it subversively eventually... even when there are perfectly good subversive terms like "infidel" around? :eek:

5) There are already terms which define nonbelievers -- and more accurately, I might add.

Yes, there are. I believe that the term "homosexual" already defined homosexuals before the word "gay" came along, and more accurately I might add. Gay has caught on in popular usage. Try to get people to use "homosexual" instead.

The primary reason, as I understand it, why people don't use the term "homosexual" is because homosexuals object to it, perhaps because it's too clinical, like diagnosing a disease.

I don't have any objection to being called a metaphysical naturalist or a secular humanist. I do have an objection to being called a Bright. I hope you can see the difference.

6) Just about everyone else hates the idea.

This is true. But if you base your opinions primarily upon what everyone else thinks, then why the heck are you an atheist?

I'm sorry, when was "everyone else hates it" raised as an objection? I was being charitable before in assuming that you had just misunderstood some of the arguments of the "anti-Bright" side, and that you weren't making straw men, but now I'm not so sure.

7) It will never catch on.

Indeed, there's a good chance that it will never catch on. It's in the birthing process right now, growing and expanding in the hopes of one day reaching the term of common usage. Thus, if you refuse to adopt the word because it will never catch on, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Again, I'm not sure where you pulled this from as being an objection to the term Bright. It's more like a simple observation, and maybe some hopeful thinking.

8) But . . . but . . . it's just so STUPID!

So, according to the majority of people on IIDB, is libertarianism. I am a libertarian. I don't think it's stupid. I can see why many people disagree with the position, and I respect many of their anti-libertarian arguments. But like anyone would, I dismiss those arguments that simply say that it's STUPID. Even though libertarianism does suffer what seems to be a perpetual PR crisis, and even though all the it's-stupid arguments do impact it negatively and keep it from catching on, I simply don't consider them. Because really, what can you say to them?

Actually, the argument is that it sounds stupid. What you fail to recognize here (and this is, I think, the height of charity in assuming that this is a misunderstanding rather than a purposeful misrepresentation) is that the "it sounds stupid" objection is not an argument designed to change a Bright advocate's mind. It's a reason why I'd rather not identify myself with such a ridiculous sounding term.

Also, you're comparing apples to oranges: trying to argue agaisnt the political content of libertarianism by saying "it's just so stupid!" is vaccuous. Objecting to the use of the term "Bright" to describe my beliefs because it's a dumb-sounding term is completely reasonable, as I hope you'll soon see when I correct your analogy.

So, you say you're a libertarian? But what kind? There are all sorts of libertarians, from neo-anarchists, to minicrats, to anarcho-capitalists, to Objectivists. What we need is positive, upbeat umbrella term to hold all these ideas under, something catchy and easy to remember.

I suggest "foobles." Any objections, Silent Dave? Certainly, I hope "It sounds stupid" isn't one of them.

Oh and by the way, you did miss one objection: the part about "Bright" being a cowardly euphemism designed to give ideas like atheism and humanism a public-friendly face, as if it needed to be covered up. I'll repost it for you:

[We] don't like the idea of skipping from one euphamism to another, trying to avoid the scorn of people who dislike what we think. Trying to co-opt the word "Bright" to mean "naturalist" just because it's "commonly accepted" and "affirmative" is cowardice, and embarassing cowardice at that. Why should I hide behind some touchy-feely term like "Bright?" I'm an infidel and a heretic and a humanist: I disavow gods, creeds, and superstition of all sorts, proclaiming the power of human beings to change the world. If someone dislikes that, tough. I'm not going to shrink back to some feel-good, embarassing-sounding buzzword just because of their bigotry. There very idea that I should do so, as the advocates of the "Bright" term seem to hold, assumes that there's something wrong with my view that needs to be "sugar-coated." That's BS, and that's the way I see it.

clark

June 21, 2003, 11:44 PM

Originally posted by Deadend
ooh, I also came across this Guardian article (http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,981412,00.html) by Richard Dawkins, relevant to this topic.

Great article! Thanks for posting it. I think this is the first time "Bright" appeared in a non-atheist publication, though an article covering the Atheist Alliance convention by a Florida newspaper may have mentioned it in passing.

The article was written by someone who has been called "the world's most famous living atheist", and certainly one of the most influential ones. Time will tell if "Bright" catches on as Dawkins hopes, as I do, or if it becomes a footnote in freethought history.

THOUGHTfully Yours,
Clark

Silent Dave

June 22, 2003, 07:13 AM

Originally posted by GunnerJ
Well, you did a fine enough job listing the objections. I'm not sure how well you answered them, though.

You sounded quite sure to me.

Actually, it doesn't make think of that. When i hear the word "gay," I think, depending on the context, of either homosexuality or happiness. "Bright" makes me think of a light, or cleverness. The idea of using the word "Bright" as an identifying term for a worldview makes me think of lightbulb-shaped-hat wearing cultists drinking cyanide-spiked Koolaid. Hence my dislike for the term.

First of all, look for the word "gay" in pre-1920's literature, before it became widely associated with homosexuality. See what image it brings to mind then. Second, the word "Bright" as an identifying term makes me think of something equally silly, namely a deity in the shape of a dragon worshipped by slug-like beings living on the surface of a neutron star. So what? This shows nothing more than that the word has not yet been associated with naturalists.

I only have to think of people calling themselves "Brights" once to start giggling under my breath, so what's your point?

What's yours?

Yes, it lost that connotation over time. Bright has not lost the "cleverness" connotation, so again, what was your point? :confused:

Neither did Gay lose the "happy" connotation before it came to be widely associated with homosexuals. So again, what's yours?

Part of the reason for the suggested introduction of the term "Bright" is PR: it's a positive, happy-sounding term that people will accept more eaily than "atheist." But given that many people already see atheists as smug know-it-alls, is this not somewhat counterproductive?

I'm afraid you'd have to spell that one out for me.

Well, we can strongly object ot it, in hopes that other people it's supposed to describe will similarly object to it.

Sure you can. I'd probably do it myself, if I had a suitably strong objection to it. Got one?

I'll go out on a limb and say this is in response to my statement that "Bright" will eventually pick up the negative connotation of the terms it's suppsoed to be an umbrealla for. My point was that the use of the term Bright is a euphamism, and like other euphamisms, it's doomed to fail because eventually, whatever supposedly dirty thing it tries to cover up will be associated with it. I will be charitable and assume that you simply misunderstood me, and that you weren't building a strawman.

You just fell off that limb.

Your point about euphamisms, though, is well taken. I can't think of a good response to it.

And on the point of negative terms becoming positives: if I wanted to be subversive, I'd do this with a term that already has negative connotations, like infidel or heretic. At least then I wouldn't feel like a damn fool. I mean, are you seriously trying to argue against my point about Bright being a doomed euphamism by saying that it will eventually become subversive because of its negative connotations? Wasn't your goal to make a positively connotated umbrealla term? So you want to make a new positive term so it will gain negative connotations so you can use it subversively eventually... even when there are perfectly good subversive terms like "infidel" around? :eek:

You assume I support the Bright movement to begin with.

The primary reason, as I understand it, why people don't use the term "homosexual" is because homosexuals object to it, perhaps because it's too clinical, like diagnosing a disease.

I don't have any objection to being called a metaphysical naturalist or a secular humanist. I do have an objection to being called a Bright. I hope you can see the difference.

Yes I can.

I'm sorry, when was "everyone else hates it" raised as an objection? I was being charitable before in assuming that you had just misunderstood some of the arguments of the "anti-Bright" side, and that you weren't making straw men, but now I'm not so sure.

Again, I'm not sure where you pulled this from as being an objection to the term Bright. It's more like a simple observation, and maybe some hopeful thinking.

I heard these two responses outside this thread. You weren't there.

Actually, the argument is that it sounds stupid. What you fail to recognize here (and this is, I think, the height of charity in assuming that this is a misunderstanding rather than a purposeful misrepresentation) is that the "it sounds stupid" objection is not an argument designed to change a Bright advocate's mind. It's a reason why I'd rather not identify myself with such a ridiculous sounding term.

I didn't understand that before. Now I do. Thank you for correcting my thinking.

Also, you're comparing apples to oranges: trying to argue agaisnt the political content of libertarianism by saying "it's just so stupid!" is vaccuous. Objecting to the use of the term "Bright" to describe my beliefs because it's a dumb-sounding term is completely reasonable, as I hope you'll soon see when I correct your analogy.

So, you say you're a libertarian? But what kind? There are all sorts of libertarians, from neo-anarchists, to minicrats, to anarcho-capitalists, to Objectivists. What we need is positive, upbeat umbrella term to hold all these ideas under, something catchy and easy to remember.

I suggest "foobles." Any objections, Silent Dave? Certainly, I hope "It sounds stupid" isn't one of them.

It does sound stupid, but I would not object to it if a good, rational reason could be hand for selecting that word above other potential candidates for catchwordhood. Got one?

Before you ask, I don't have a good rational reason for selecting Bright above other potential candidates for catchwordhood. But then, I haven't read that website. I was simply reacting to the venom that sprouted up pretty much overnight about what struck me as a fairly harmless concept.

Oh and by the way, you did miss one objection: the part about "Bright" being a cowardly euphemism designed to give ideas like atheism and humanism a public-friendly face, as if it needed to be covered up. I'll repost it for you: [/B]

I did miss that objection, and I have no good response to it. Thank you for calling it to my attention.

You made several good points, and if I were supporting the Bright-ers rather than simply playing devil's advocate for my own purposes, perhaps you would have caused me to reconsider. I should tell you, however, that for the sake of furthering meaningful discussion as well as fostering camraderie amongst moderators, I've made a few assumptions. First, that you honestly thought I was supporting the Bright movement. Second, that you honestly thought I was misrepresenting an argument that you had made. And third, that you weren't trying to disguise a knee-jerk reaction of accusing your dissidents of deliberately constructing strawmen behind transparent "maybe you just misunderstood" rhetoric.

And really, I'm being charitable here.

Dave

Mediancat

June 22, 2003, 08:13 AM

I guess my main objection to the 'bright" terminology is that it answers a question that wasn't asked. I'm not offended when I'm called an atheist, and I see no reason to come up with a blanket word which I will then have to clarify.

There are no varieties of atheist. There are varieties of other beliefs in atheists, but atheist means one thing, and one thing only: I don't believe in God.

If other people choose to assume that means I "hate" God, or that I'm a communist, or use the word atheist as an insult, that's on them; and there's nothing inherent in "bright" that says that people won't eventually make the same assumptions.

I don't hate the suggestion, I just don't think there's any point to it.

Rob aka Mediancat

GunnerJ

June 22, 2003, 08:17 AM

You made several good points, and if I were supporting the Bright-ers rather than simply playing devil's advocate for my own purposes, perhaps you would have caused me to reconsider. I should tell you, however, that for the sake of furthering meaningful discussion as well as fostering camraderie amongst moderators, I've made a few assumptions. First, that you honestly thought I was supporting the Bright movement. Second, that you honestly thought I was misrepresenting an argument that you had made. And third, that you weren't trying to disguise a knee-jerk reaction of accusing your dissidents of deliberately constructing strawmen behind transparent "maybe you just misunderstood" rhetoric.

Firstly, yes, I did think you were a supporter. Secondly, I did really wonder if you were misrepresenting my position, or if you have just misunderstood. Thridly, I agree that I was being impolite in using such a ploy, and in my general tone. I'm sorry.

First of all, look for the word "gay" in pre-1920's literature, before it became widely associated with homosexuality. See what image it brings to mind then. Second, the word "Bright" as an identifying term makes me think of something equally silly, namely a deity in the shape of a dragon worshipped by slug-like beings living on the surface of a neutron star. So what? This shows nothing more than that the word has not yet been associated with naturalists.

The point is that the advocates of the term are trying to justify giving the word Bright a connotation by poiting out example of words that have been given new meanings. But they can't give any reason as to why anyone of us should bother trying to give the word "Bright" a new meaning. I'm not going to start calling myself something that I find pretty silly on the hopes that someday it could be adopted, despite the numerous planning flaws in this campaign (i.e., confusion about arrogance, the "doomed euphamism" effect.), and the fact that I really dislike the term, and don't even se eit as necessary.

What's yours?

That pointing out that saying a word many times will cause it to sound "weird" is a hollow argument.

Neither did Gay lose the "happy" connotation before it came to be widely associated with homosexuals. So again, what's yours?

That you can't support giving a word a new connotation just by pointing out that it has been done in the past, while glossing over the many theoretical and practical barriers to the new use's implementation.

I'm afraid you'd have to spell that one out for me.

You were responding to the fact that identifying yourself as a Bright would lead people to think that you think you're smarter than they are, and you argued that my this logic, calling people "gay" would imply that they're more happy than others. As I pointed out, bright still has the connotation of cleverness. Since the adoption of the term "Bright" is an attempt to find a positive sounding catch-all term for atheists, it might be misguided, given that many people already consider atheists smug know-it-alls. Given the inevitable confusion caused by the term, and that fact that an attempt to find out what the word "Bright" used as a noun means would inevitably lead anyone with half a brain cell to conclude that a Bright is an atheist, the term shoots itself in the foot.

On looking this over, it seems that my point still may be unclear. OK. The makers of the term "Bright" as a noun want to shy away from negative connotations of words like "atheist," for example. But when you call yourself a Birght, people may assume that you're trying to insinuate that you have intellectual superiority. Given that any simple explaination of the use of Bright as a noun will expose the user as an atheist, and given that first impressions are hard to rub out, this will only add to people's misconceptions about atheists as being smug know-it-alls, when this was precisely what the use of the term attempted to avoid.

Sure you can. I'd probably do it myself, if I had a suitably strong objection to it. Got one?

Two: It's a euphamism that assumes that naturalism is a "dirty term" that needs to be covered up, and it will lead to further negative misconceptions about atheists.

And, on a personal note, it sounds really fraggin' dumb.

You assume I support the Bright movement to begin with.

I did, but that doesn't defeat my point: my claim was that euphamisms will always be tainted by the term they try to hide, to which you responded that if Bright gains a negative connotation, we can use it subversively, to show that we don't care that Bright is now seen as a negative term. But the whole point of using the term "Bright" is to find a "positive," "widely acceptable" term for atheism, naturalism, and humanism. If we wanted to be subversive, we could've called ourselves infidels and heretics, and saved ourselves a lot of time and embarassment.

"I hope you can see the difference."

Yes I can.

I knew you would. ;)

I heard these two responses outside this thread. You weren't there.

Well, if "everybody hates it" was listed as an objection, then I'm in agreement that it is a weak objection. But, if you couple "everybody hates it" with "it'll never catch on," you actually have, if not an objection, then a rather sharp observation: if the Bright-advocates can't even get the people they want to describe with this term on board, how can anyone expect it to succeed?

I didn't understand that before. Now I do. Thank you for correcting my thinking.

And thank you for not taking undue offense at my thinly-veiled insinuations.

It does sound stupid, but I would not object to it if a good, rational reason could be hand for selecting that word above other potential candidates for catchwordhood. Got one?

Got what? A good, rational reason for using the term "Bright?" If the people advocating it don't have any, how should I? :D

Or are you asking if I have a better "catchword?" I will reply as I did to Dave Paine:

The problem is, you think you've put some sort of gauntlet down that all the people who are against the use of the term "Bright" have to answer: "Haha, can't come up with a better term, can you?"

The fact is, no. And I don't care, because coming up with a "catchword" for what all of us think is irrelevent to me. The only criteria I see as important in using a term to describe my beliefs is that it:

1) is accurate, and
2) doesn't make me feel like an idiot to use.

"Humanist" is a good term, "infidel" is better, because of it's delightful subversive factor. I couldn't give two shits less if neither is monosylabic, as I don't redefine myself for people too dumb to understand "big words." Nor could I care less if one of them is "linguistically negative." And I am very unimpressed by the argument that both have negative connotations: all the Bright advocates make comparisons to how the gay community gained acceptance, but the thing that they (gay people) did which impressed me most in this regard was when the took a term like "queer," which was intended as a slur, and adopted it, thus subverting its hateful meaning. It's the same with how young black men call each other "nigger," how my close friend can be "my nigga." It defangs the term of negative meanings.

But most important of all, I can call myself a humanist or an infidel with a straight face, without blushing, and without imagining a big, honking, lightbulb-shaped hat on my head. That is why "Bright" loses, and why I really am not concerned with the aims of the people who came up with "Bright" as a term to describe my beliefs.

Before you ask, I don't have a good rational reason for selecting Bright above other potential candidates for catchwordhood. But then, I haven't read that website. I was simply reacting to the venom that sprouted up pretty much overnight about what struck me as a fairly harmless concept.

I hope you can see now why I don't consider it a harmless idea.

Viti

June 22, 2003, 10:18 AM

If abuses are destroyed, we must destroy them. If slaves are freed, we must free them. If new truths are discovered, we must discover them. If the naked are clothed; if the hungry are fed; if justice is done; if labor is rewarded; if superstition is driven from the mind; if the defenseless are protected and if the right finally triumphs, all must be the work of people. The grand victories of the future must be won by humanity, and by humanity alone.`Robert Ingersoll

We could call ourselves the Great Highbulps of Hilarity and it wouldn't matter. Unless our actions define us as positive, moral people nobody will view us positively.

lunachick

June 22, 2003, 10:40 AM

Okay, I've only read the OP and a couple of posts that followed it, as well as LadyShea's post just prior to me hitting the reply button.

All I can say is, "what a thoroughly ridiculous proposal", as I roll my eyes at the sheer wankiness of it all. I mean, what the hell will it achieve aside from making some rather self-congratulatory people feel even more superior at their ability to talk shite while doing absolutely nothing?!

Incidentally, those few words I read of LadyShea's, including the Robert Ingersoll quote, is what it's all about, IMO.

Forget about what you call yourselves and just get out there and make a difference in real and tangible ways. Nothing else matters.

Viti

June 22, 2003, 11:01 AM

Well, ask yourselves this. At the end of the day would you feel a sense of accomplishment and fulfillment because you managed to help spread a newly coined term? If someone asks what you have done in your life do you want to say "I helped my fellow humans" or "I helped get the term Bright into common usage".

:( This makes me sad

PS The 'Bling Bling' comparison? Not a good idea...why would you use an equally stupid term as support?

lunachick

June 22, 2003, 11:10 AM

Hey, LadyShea! They could all call themselves "Bright Bling-Bling's", while running around in tinfoil hats mastering secret handshakes. LOL!

...meanwhile, the real world weeps at the lack of real humanity in communities today...

viscousmemories

June 22, 2003, 01:41 PM

Well I for one think this is a very interesting thread. I agree with every one of the main objections to the idea that have been raised, and I�d like to add a couple more. When I hear the word �bright� in reference to a person, unlike many here my first thought isn�t �intelligent person�, it�s �shiny, happy person�. Since I am about as far from a �shiny, happy person� as one can be, I would never, will never, cannot even fathom, referring to myself or anyone I like and respect as a �bright�.

The point is that I am cynical, and all of my closest friends are cynical, and we�re also all skeptics and naturalists and atheists. We use these terms alternately to describe ourselves, based largely on mood and context, and we all understand what they mean. Speaking now only for myself, I also have no problem saying out loud that I am a humanist, a naturalist, a skeptic, an atheist, a cynic. Hell, most people don�t even know what half of those words mean. Why should it bother me?

What I find interesting about this thread is not the different arguments for and against coining a new bouncy, happy little catchphrase that we doomy-gloomy philosophical types can dress ourselves in like a fluffy new outfit. What is interesting to me is that any skeptic would fall for this crap. It�s a diversion. It�s a non-issue. It�s a way of side-stepping having to tell your family and friends that your beliefs are most easily summarized by a word (or words) that they have a negative view of, or even, god-forbid, actually doing something to promote a more positive view of people with your beliefs. As GunnerJ and others have said, it�s cowardly. It�s unnecessary. It�s inaccurate. It�s arbitrary. And most of all, it really is quite stupid.

livius drusus

June 22, 2003, 02:05 PM

Just for good measure, I'd like to throw in the another connotation that underscores how abysmally bad this idea is. "The Brights" sounds like the name of a children's book about some happy family of fireflies (or possibly moles if the writer is going for the heavy irony). It's precious and juvenile and worst of all, squeaky fucking clean.

Anybody remember "The Littles"? That's an adjective used as a noun too.

Demosthenes

June 22, 2003, 02:14 PM

I checked out the relevant links when I heard about this controversy.

Honestly, it's absolutely a terrible idea. Using the very word Bright to denote an atheist strikes me as just plain silly and buffoonish.

To me atheist and secular humanist have the correct connotations that we want to promote positively. Why do we need to muddle the water by adding another label and a silly one at that? We have work cut out for us promoting naturalistic and humanistic worldview using the appropriate and well defined labels. We don't have the time nor the inclination to add an ill-designed label to the mix.

Everytime I hear somebody say he's a Bright, I immediately think of a person with an empty head filled with hot air and bright eyes of a one that's been tripping. It also doesn't help that I've read sci-fi stories where Bright was the name given to non-human AIs that like to consume human minds.

There's also a subtle jab, it implies that non-atheists are stupid and ineffectual in their lives.

This whole Bright campaign is just a cheap trick to inflate the egos of those involved in it. I'll have nothing to do with those people whatsoever. It's stooping down to a low and weak intellectual level.

ComestibleVenom

June 23, 2003, 01:33 AM

Thing is, I love stirring up bigotry by calling myself a hard-atheist. It gives me a chance to defend my beliefs!

ComestibleVenom

June 23, 2003, 01:37 AM

Originally posted by GunnerJ
"metaphysical naturalist"

I decidedly prefer the term "methodological naturalist".

viscousmemories

June 23, 2003, 02:07 AM

Jackalope

June 23, 2003, 02:55 AM

Originally posted by livius drusus
Just for good measure, I'd like to throw in the another connotation that underscores how abysmally bad this idea is. "The Brights" sounds like the name of a children's book about some happy family of fireflies (or possibly moles if the writer is going for the heavy irony). It's precious and juvenile and worst of all, squeaky fucking clean.

Worse, there is a short story titled "The Brights" and it's about children who are so much more intelligent than everyone else, they eventually leave our dimension to get away from all the "stupids." For our own good, of course. Or something like that. Someone referenced the story right at the beginning of the thread, so I know it isn't that obscure. I know I had a negative reaction to the label "Brights" partially because I have read that particular short story. And because, like many others, I think it's a really stupid-sounding name.

I'd also like to reiterate that "reclaiming" slang words only works if the term has already aquired negative connotations. Therefore, comparing this new label brights to gay, queer, or nigga is invalid. Using the reasoning that one should reclaim negative terms for one's group, infidel is certainly more appropriate. Or possibly heretic or heathen.

From Catherine Madsen's Heretic Heart:

I once was found but now I'm gone
Away from the "Faithful Fold"
Of those who preach that holiness
Is to do as you are told
Though law and scripture, priest and prayer
Have all instructed me

My skin, my bones, my Heretic heart
Are my authority

Now they tell me Jesus loves me
But I think that he loves in vain
He must go unrequited
On me he has no claim
For the man who would command me must
Wear the horn and let me be

My skin, my bones, my Heretic heart
Are my authority

And while I breathe this glorious air
An outlaw I'll remain
My body will not be subdued
And I will not be "saved"
And if I cannot shout it loud
I'll sing it secretly

My skin, my bones, my Heretic heart
Are my authority

What's wrong with reclaiming one of the labels we're already stuck with?

viscousmemories

June 23, 2003, 11:14 AM

Originally posted by Jackalope What's wrong with reclaiming one of the labels we're already stuck with?
Don't be silly, Jackalope. Everybody knows it's impossible to alter the pre-conceived negative opinion people have about a word or words, but quite simple really to take a happy word and completely redefine it to mean something entirely unrelated to its previous meaning! Comeon! Get with the program.

Oh, and here's your robe and silly little hat. I'll meet you over by the kool-aid.

*viscousmemories skips over to the kool-aid counter, trilling a happy little tune*

I'm Bright(tm), I'm Bright(tm), my little robe is tight...

GunnerJ

June 23, 2003, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by ComestibleVenom
I decidedly prefer the term "methodological naturalist".

I prefer both to "Bright." :)

Jackalope

June 24, 2003, 01:35 AM

Originally posted by viscousmemories

Oh, and here's your robe and silly little hat. I'll meet you over by the kool-aid.

Dude, we've already got the silly hats and white lab coats over here. [Okay, this is Jon Frum, not me, but I built the Happy Helmet he's wearing]
http://gw.retro.com/employees/lee/Art/JodyResized.jpg

[edited to resize the photo]

Shake

June 25, 2003, 09:41 AM

Alright, I'm back with a quick question. I keep hearing everyone say, "It'll never catch on." Well, here's the question, then: What if it does catch on? What if some day you hear Peter Jennings or Pat Robertson or the President talking about 'the Brights'?
Well, ask yourselves this. At the end of the day would you feel a sense of accomplishment and fulfillment because you managed to help spread a newly coined term? If someone asks what you have done in your life do you want to say "I helped my fellow humans" or "I helped get the term Bright into common usage". Well LadyShea, it is possible to do both! And if a new term can help get non-believers some respect and get rid of some stress, then I'd call that helping my fellow humans.

Now, just as a statement of belief (i.e. I'm not going to debate this further): I believe you can change the meaning of a word, or at least its usage (adj. to noun or what-have-you). Obviously, you can't do this overnight.

Anyway, we'll see what happens with the movement. Even I will still call myself an atheist. I'm not ashamed of that label, I just wish it didn't have such a negative association to most of the public.

We've had other threads (mostly in C-SS&SA) talking about what can be done to at least get rid of the knee-jerk reaction that most people have when they hear the 'a'-word. We've all heard the Bush (Sr., IIRC) quote about how atheists aren't true Americans (TM). If someone at that level can voice such an opinion with no public outcry, that's a big problem. Is it being kind of sneaky to change the label for some (perhaps) temporary acceptance on some level? Maybe, but if it works at all, then I feel it's helped the cause of those of us who don't follow the religious norm.

Now, you've got W up there in Washington, trying to establish a theocracy, and other vocal public figures who would try to cram Xianity down our throats, calling us un-American, etc. Who do we have at that level, any public level even, speaking for us? No one! I'm not even suggesting we necessarily need someone, but we would like to have those in power at least be considerate of our rights, and give us the respect we deserve as citizens and ultimately as people.

This is really all I'm going to say in this thread about the issue unless somebody presents something truly novel, not rehashing the same arguments.

(No hard feelings to those who disagree. I respect your views, too.)

AquaVita

June 25, 2003, 09:44 AM

Originally posted by Shake
What if it does catch on? What if some day you hear Peter Jennings or Pat Robertson or the President talking about 'the Brights'?

I will shoot myself.

But in case I deem that to be too extreme, I will politely correct anyone who happens to call ME a bright, explaining that I don't belong to that kool-aid cult. I am merely agnostic.

Demosthenes

June 25, 2003, 10:44 AM

"You're a Bright!"

"No I'm not"

"Yes you are!"

"NO! I'm an atheist!"

Rhea

June 25, 2003, 11:16 AM

Well, you're not a TRUE Bright!

June 25, 2003, 01:02 PM

An old quote from Dawkins:
Perhaps the best of the available euphemisms for atheist is nontheist. It lacks the connotation of positive conviction that there is definitely no god, and it could therefore easily be embraced by Teapot or Tooth Fairy Agnostics. It is less familiar than atheist and lacks its phobic connotations. Yet, unlike a completely new coining, its meaning is clear. If we want a euphemism at all, nontheist is probably the best.

The alternative which I favor is to renounce all euphemisms and grasp the nettle of the word atheism itself, precisely because it is a taboo word carrying frissons of hysterical phobia. Critical mass may be harder to achieve than with some non-confrontational euphemism, but if we did achieve it with the dread word atheist, the political impact would be all the greater.

What do you think has happened to him recently? Senility?

girlwriter

June 25, 2003, 06:40 PM

Shake, this is exactly why I'm opposed to this idea. You asserted earlier that no one is forcing this on anyone. But what if you are right? What if this does catch on? What about those of us who are being realistic and acknowledging the likely reactions our friends and family will have to the term? We don't want to be refered to as/associated with brights. If you want to call yourself a bright, then do so, but be honest. You're talking about attempting to create a blanket term for all of us, one that - if it is successful - we will all have to live with.

Do you honestly believe that calling yourself a bright will change those knee-jerk, negative reactions that you get when you tell people you don't believe? Open your eyes, it is not going to happen. Do you honestly believe that people will not think you are trying to make your belief system sound superior to theirs by calling yourself a bright? Don't come back with the "noun, not an adjective" argument, it's a non-seauitor, and it's non-sense at that. I'm talking about what people know the word to mean. If it cantches on, it will most likely have a negative impact on people's perception of atheists, whether you choose to acknowledge that or not.

Incedentally, I know of a great way to change people's perspective about atheists, and it's a lot easier than creating a new euphemism and trying to convince others of it's new meaning.

Tell people you're an atheist. In most cases, the person will have thier preconcieved ideas forcably changed, because they cannot justify thier preconcieved notions that atheists are monsters with the living, breathing, decent, normal human being in front of them. If enough of us do this, as homosexuals have done, then people, over time, will begin to see us as we *are.* Normal, decent people. There is no other way to accomplish this. Then and *only* then, will people have posative associations with whatever we choose to call ourselves. It doesn't matter how the word sounds, or how many syllables are in it. What matters is what people associate with the word. People who have a negative image of atheists will never lose that until they are directly presented with a posative image of an athiest. Not a word. A person, and that person's deeds. I'll repost LadyShea's Ingersoll quote, because this, I believe, is the *only* way to do what you are talking about.

If abuses are destroyed, we must destroy them. If slaves are freed, we must free them. If new truths are discovered, we must discover them. If the naked are clothed; if the hungry are fed; if justice is done; if labor is rewarded; if superstition is driven from the mind; if the defenseless are protected and if the right finally triumphs, all must be the work of people. The grand victories of the future must be won by humanity, and by humanity alone.`Robert Ingersoll