Vylo

Need an assload of scholarly social data? Try this: http://www.icpsr.umich.edu:8080/GSS/homepage.htm

copernicus

DC, why is the Bright campaign mutually exclusive with demonstrating that one is a "normal person worthy of their respect"? The problem with the naysayers is that many of their arguments also apply equally well to minority movements in the past. Why should skin color matter? Just show them that you are a person worthy of respect. Why should gender matter? Just show them that you are worthty of respect. Why should sexual orientation matter? Just show them that you are worthy of respect. Why should lack of religious belief matter?

You tell me.

Rusting Car Bumper

You make my point.

It wasn't going from "nigger" or "african american" that made changes. It was actual demonstrations of humanity with things such as non-violent direct action and so on.

DC

copernicus

Nonsense. Every struggle for minority rights has involved a battle over language, and I have given many examples of that. The most salient example has been the substitution of "pro-choice" for "pro-abortion" and "pro-life" for "anti-abortion". Language wars happen because we put so much stock in labels. If you doubt that point, then just take a look at the number of pages in this debate thread. Almost the entire topic has been taken up with discussion--sometimes quite emotional discussion--over the use of the word "Bright".

And I don't agree that it all came down to just demonstrations. Political movements involve struggles at many different levels. Since the language of politics is so important, we ought to do more than just give it lip service. We need to pay attention to it.

BTW, if "Bright" really does catch on, what would you say to softening the word a little? We could talk about "brightists" rather than "brights", and we could refer to "brightism" or the "brightist movement", rather than the "Bright movement". Instead of saying "I'm a Bright", one could say "I'm a brightist." That linguistic option would both remove the pretentious edge on the word and retain the word stem that the founders of the movement have become so attached to. It's something of a compromise, but it still leaves us with a positive label.

Rusting Car Bumper

<sigh> We repeat ourselves...

And it was shown those "battles" were never fully won as people still use "nigger" and "gay" as pejoritive statements.

Wrong again. The civl rights movement was only partly political.

That's part of our problem. Non-believers problems are MOSTLY social and very little political at the root.

If "bright" catches on you call yourself a "brightest" if you want. Without real movement, "Bright" will simply be used as a pejoritive just like "nigger" or "atheist" is now so it won't matter.

DC

Shake

I posted this the first time I saw this poll, but it's just so outrageous, it demands repetition. WTF???

copernicus

The pejorative use of "gay" to mean "stupid" is fairly recent, but "nigger" was never anything but a racial slur. Social and linguistic battles will never be "fully won", but they have brought about profound changes in society. Bigoted statements about most minority groups are now taboo in polite society. That isn't true about atheists, however. People still express negative feelings about atheism in public as if it were the most natural thing in the world, just like blatantly racist remarks were publicly tolerated in the 1950's and early 1960's. Many mainstream films before the 60's are no longer shown because of their explicit racism.

Did I say that it wasn't? Reread what I wrote.

The racial slur is highly offensive in a way that "atheist" is not, and it is really ridiculous to think that atheists have suffered in the way that racial minorities or homosexuals have. However, "atheist" does have a pejorative connotation. If the word "bright" or "brightism" ever achieves enough notice to be stigmatized in the way you suggest, then the movement will have achieved some measure of success. The goal is to raise the consciousness of the public about the true nature of our minority. What usually happens when euphemisms become stigmatized is that a new term is invented. There are long chains of euphemisms for some stigmatized social groups. That is a very natural phenomenon. Somehow, however, I don't think that we will find our struggle as difficult. Society has come to recognize the value of tolerance. We just seem to be something of a blind spot for most people out there.

The grip of religion on mainstream thinking seems to have weakened significantly in many countries, particularly in Europe. Now is the time for us to come out of the closet.

Rusting Car Bumper

I realy don't think this is going to go anywhere. You simply believe a name change can have an effect. I fail to see that demonstrated by any stretch whatsoever.

Real effort to create change in positive ways of behaviour and self-identity through behaviour are the real methods.

The Bright movement is supported by a bunch of people (Shermer, Randi, etc) who are great and all because of their entertainment and explanatory capabilities. However magic acts and debunking psychics are not what the real problems of non-believers are about. These people are insultated from these problems by and large.

Non-believers do not have a positive identity movement nor do they have a positive identity spokesman.

Without that Bright isn't too bright.

That's all I have to say.

DC

copernicus

I agree, and that is precisely what started the Bright movement.

Nobody has claimed that the Bright movement is about the promotion of debunking activities, and none of us can claim to be a true spokesman for the "real problems of non-believers". Ad hominem attacks and straw men do not advance your argument.

Exactly. A vacuum exists, and brightism is an attempt to fill it.

viscousmemories

I found an excellent resource for information about the movement for anyone who's interested.

vm