Silent Dave

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

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

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.

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

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

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?

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

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.

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.

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:

clark

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

You sounded quite sure to me.

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.

What's yours?

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

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


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


You just fell off that limb.

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


You assume I support the Bright movement to begin with.


Yes I can.


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


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


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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 knew you would.

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?

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

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

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.

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

Viti

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

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

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

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...