Right. But it is just this characterization of “forcing” the language to change that I object to. No one is “forcing” anything. This guy simply proposed a change and asked if people would sign on.
The protests against the “bright is stupid” attitude are simply attempts to explain what is meant by the new word (or new use of the old word).
Also, I think that in this context your comparison to an obcenity does not fit. Bright (even as an adjective) is not an obscene word. In its adjective form it is not “already widely accepted as conveying an aggresive meaning”. The agressive meaning of Bright IMHO is taken from the religion vs other context. If we were talking about using “Bright” as a catchall phrase for people who thought hydroponics was a better way to farm this discussion would not be as heated.
As I’ve said before, the only other alternative to Bright which would not engender this kind of reaction would be a totally made up word. <Place your own random letters here>
Perhaps the problem is simply that people don’t like the possibility of comparison to Bright as dim. But dim is not the opposite of the noun Bright. What if we use “Supernaturalists” to describe people who are not Brights?
Except that not all non-believers are naturalists. I agree you distinction about the default state is important, but it’s important to remember that it’s default only in the sense of philosophical presumptions: that is, not making one. It certainly can’t be compared with “sane” in the sense that most people are sane… but most people are also theists.
No good, because the vast majority of theists do believe that reality is objective – even if people’s perception of it is not. (Additionally, you’re not going to get any brownie points by formulating a definition based on the presumption that all theistic belief is mere “superstition.” Even if that turns out to be true, building that premise into your definition would only hinder your cause.)
Right, because we’d all be in agreement that “Brights” were pretty flaky, and possibly some kind of cult. Mainstream hydroponics advocates would be doing all they could to distance themselves from the “Brights”.
A neologism isn’t a terribly bad idea, but it can’t be as esoteric-sounding as “Brights”, nor already exist as a compliment. I like “Rationalists”, since rattional isn’t as strong a compliment, and “rationalize” can often be downright negative. “Objectivists” would be even better, if it weren’t already a defined philosophy.
Again, however, whatever you want to call 'em, the social objections to those who would be called Brights will hardly fade. Their opponents will merely start using the new word in their tirades and objections.
Maybe I should talk to my Pastor, we can be the “Awesomes”.
Nor have any hydroponic farmers said that dirt is only for unthinking, superstitious farmers who are too weak to question the farming methods that were taught to them as children. As for “Rationalist,” I will become George Bush’s pleasure slave before I call Ayn Rand “rational” and Benedict Spinoza “irrational.”
What happened to “freethinker” or “humanist”? What’s wrong with those terms? (FWIW, Naturalist refers to someone educated in biology who, for example, works for a Park service or some such employer: every Whale Boat on Puget Sound staffs a naturalist to answer questions. And Objectivist refers to Ayn Rand toadies.)
Cue Dinsdale’s oft-repeated rant on why he chooses (when he has to) to refer to himself as a Humanist - reflecting much of what he believes in, rather than an atheist - reflecting some of what he rejects.
The nude-beach-goers are naturists, not naturalists.
Humanist is better than bright, but I’m not sure it’s the right word: after all, there are plenty of nihilist atheists whom I wouldn’t consider humanists.
And “freethinker” has much of the same baggage as “bright”: it suggests that people who are religious do not think freely.
Even if some religious people take arrogant titles like “saved” or “chosen,” I don’t want to take an arrogant title for myself.
pervert, the guy may not be literally forcing a change on the language, but he is trying to make a change to the language in a bizarre fashion. He’s wanting to inject a word into the language intentionally, rather than letting it evolve.
It does occur to me that there is precedence for this: African-American was introduced into the language for similar reasons, I think. Maybe we should look at how that happened and what led to its success as a model?
“Bright”–might as well call themselves “Better-than-you” or “Uebermenschen”.
“Rationalist”–only covers a subset of atheists. I’ve met more than a few who were quite irrational and narrow-minded.
“Objectivist”–first, it’s already used by the Randies for their cult. Second, I’ve also met more than a few atheists to whom objective thinking seems to be quite the stranger.
OK, I’m sorry. I thought the smileys were enough, but the Objectivist suggestion was purely a joke. I suppose its only funny if you are willing to laugh at Objectivists. Which I am even though I might consider myself one sometimes.
From your link, Dinsdale
I don’t think this applies to enough athiests or agnostics for that matter.
Seriously. Try and pick a word which covers everyone who does not beleive in god, is not merely a reference to “ungodness”, and yet includes everyone who is not superstitious.
BTW, I really don’t mean to include the negative conotations of superstitious. I just don’t know a word which would be the opposite of “Bright”. I think I suggested “SuperNaturalists” earlier. Maybe there is a better term. We can’t use “godly” since I’m not sure if that includes the wickens or new agers. Would spiritualists work?
The way to deal with negative connotations of such labels is for the group to embrace the label and transform it to a positive one.
I believe this was the logic behind African-Americans who embraced the term “Black”. It could also be a justification for the terms “gay” and “queer”, although as I understand it the actual justification was different: “homosexual” was a term imposed by outsiders on gays, and a term of illness, while “gay” and “queer” were originally used by gays themselves as code words to signal their orientation to others of the same persuasion. (Whether any of that is historically accurate, I don’t know, but that’s the legen I’ve heard.)
I think a lot of the negativity of “atheist” stems from a few high-profile atheists, like Madeline Murray O’Hare, who are perceived as deranged fanatics. Perhaps if people knew their friends were atheists, they wouldn’t have such a negative opinion.
So I say to you, my brethren, embrace the term “atheist”! Come out of the closet! Atheism forever! We’re atheists and we’re proud!
You’re quite right; it was more a caricature than an analogy.
My point stands though; at least one of the reasons that ‘fuck off’ is not a suitable substitute for ‘thank you’ is that it is really very hard to emotionally detach ourselves from the accepted meaning of words and phrases - although I might intellectually accept that when someone says ‘bright’, they mean ‘atheist’, there’s a whole other level of stuff going on under the surface that I don’t really have full control over - I’m quite likely to have attached other (and in this case improper) meaning to it without even trying to.
If the ‘bright’ distinction was all about hydroponics, then yes, it wouldn’t be such a hot-button issue, but there are a, I believe, number of reasons for that; certainly (as you seem to imply) the emotional commitment to matters of religion is one, but also very important (as I said before) is the fact that the distinction between atheists and believers is already an intellectual one - using a term that has connotations of intellectual capability makes it all the more easy to take the wrong way.
Again, humanism and naturalism are both ALREADY names for philosophies espoused by some but not all unbelievers. non-theist and non-believer are kinda dull, but I dont see what’s wrong with em.
Another atheist here saying he doesn’t like the “bright” tag. Contrived, pretentious, yadda yadda.
I semi-seriously propose “Groundhogs”. In one of Asimov’s books this is used to describe people who stayed planet bound in a space faring universe. I always liked it.
Any further discussions of this would best be done in another thread (though I suspect it’s been done before).
The full name of the Mormon church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Notice the hyphen and lower-case “d” in Latter-day (as well as “of” vs. “and”). Believe it or not, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is another church.
The term “saint” as currently used in the Catholic Church is not biblical nor does it mean the same thing to LDS.
Anyway, Brights should take a survey of schoolyards and seen how the schoolyard insults changed from stupid to retarded to special just as quickly as the terms themselves did. All this would do is copy the baggage currently on atheist onto bright, but it won’t, because it won’t work.
