Clivedurdle

May I commend this site?

As "gay" has become a more positive term than homosexual, the intention is that "bright" used as a noun - "I am a bright" is used as a more positive way to describe atheists, humanists, agnostics and freethinkers.

I don't know where the term came from but the connection I have is with Monty Pythons Life of Brian - the song "Always look on the bright side of life".

As the converse of gay is straight, maybe the converse of bright should be Brian.

(start whistling everybody!)

GunnerJ

BOOO!

This is old news: a poor idea, its flaws already exposed.

Gurdur

I'm with GunnerJ on this one.

If I really needed the fun, anyway, I would join Dogbert's New Ruling Class.

AquaVita

I really, really hope this is not gaining widespread popularity. I may just start calling myself an evangelical asshole when people ask me my religion. I hate this idea.

[officespace]That is the worst idea I've ever heard in my life, Tom. Yes, this is horrible, this idea.[/oficespace]

AquaVita

Oh and this probably also belongs in SL&S...

Cipher Girl

An abolutely horrible idea. Bright sounds so goofy, so cultlike. It needs white robes, nikes, and purple koolaid to go with it.

GunnerJ

What? We already have a thread on this rubbish, I just linked to it!

You'll rue the day you crossed me, AquaVita. I'm talking HRADCROE rue-age here. I don't mean you're just gonna go home and rue a little bit, maybe in the living room, and then quit, thinking that's enough. You're going to be rue-ing throughout the whole house.

AquaVita

I'm no one to contend with HRADCROE.

I hereby resign my duties as a fellow human being.

Farewell.

GunnerJ

There's an interesting FAQ on the-brights.net . It attempts to deal with criticisms of the new term. Let's see how they do...

Right... like "gay" for "homosexual?" (Gay used to only be an adjective too, remember.)


This idea of the umbrella term shows up later, and yet I wonder if this is really a potent defense. I mean, an umbrella term can also be a euphamism, right? Also, the main page describes the term "Bright" thusly:

Yet, isn't there already a term for this? like, "metaphysical naturalist?" The author of the page argues later that naturalism isn't an ethical system, that terms like "humanist" or "pragmatist" describe naturalistic ethics. Thus, the umbrella term. But I have to wonder, is an "umbrealla" really necessary? Why does everything have to be wrapped up in a neat package, a sound bite to encompase all naturalistic belief. The very need to have an umbrealla term seems quite religious, to me.

Let's see how long they can hold that thought. Four questions down, they say:

Right, no euphemism here!

On to the question of the arrogance of using the term bright: they try to argue that there's no arrogance in calling yourself a Bright, because it's quite different from saying that you are bright. And yet, the fourth question deals with how it may be confusing to have two meanings for Bright. While we can certainly tell when a word is being used in different ways in different context, this is only because we already know of alternate meanings. My point is: there may be no intended arrogance in calling onself a Bright, but because this "new meaning" is unknown, arrogance will be assumed: people will be confused by using a term with a known meaning (clever) in a new way, and without explaining this difference, an arrogant, snooty attitude may be implied. We need only look to the original thread on the subject to see how easily this occurs.

The makers of the page argue that in time, this new meaning can be adopted. But why should it? It's a stupid-sounding term! They attempt to deal with this objection:

Hold it: when people talk about how the term "bright" is a light, silly term, they aren't talking about any political ramifications. They're talking about how godawfully stupid it sounds! In any situation, saying that the terms "atheist, agnostic, humanist, skeptic, rationalist, secular humanist, [and] igtheist[?]" carry little weight politically is a weak counter: Bright carries no weight, since it's a completely new meaning for a known word, and is not likely to gain much weight because of how frivilous it sounds. Does anyone seriosuly think that identifying ourselves as "Brights," a word which already has meanings and connotations, one of which is "cleverness," which could lead to confusion and assumptions of arrogance if used as an identifier, and besides which, sounds like some new-age cult term when used in this way, is going to gain the "community of reason" any "civic weight?"

Huh?

It is interesting that "catching on" can mean fame or infamy.

Accept that this was a term usesd to belittle homosexuals, and was only latter adopted by them for a subversive purpose! A similar case cannot be made for "Bright."

Onward:

Hmm. You know it's funny, with a few modifications...

See if you can guess which word I changed for another.

Bullshit. Bright is not unencumbered: it has existing meanings, and arbitrarily using old terms in new ways will cause confusion with the old meanings. Furthermore, when a good portion of the people you hope to describe with the word think it's stupid, I think it's fair to say that it has a pretty poor shot at "pervad[ing] all of society."

And I say, "thank athe for that!"

King Rat

I'm an INFIDEL god damn it!

See!