viscousmemories

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

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

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

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

ComestibleVenom

I decidedly prefer the term "methodological naturalist".

viscousmemories

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Jackalope

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

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

I prefer both to "Bright."

Jackalope

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]


[edited to resize the photo]