Viti

What odds will you take on a bet that they are getting paid for the live presentations they are giving all over the country?

copernicus

LadyShea, the prominent people who support this probably are getting paid for appearences. Some of them would be even if they didn't get involved in this. So, I'm not going to begrudge them their lecture fees.

Hello, Gunnerj! The word "gay" was first used to mean "homosexual" in the 1930's. Before that, some homosexuals preferred to call themselves "queers". It is also true that the word "Black" became stigmatized at one point and was replaced by words like "colored" and "negro". It came back into fashion in the 60's and 70's. Now it has a bit of a stigma associated with it again and "African American" is the preferred term. The word "nigger" has not ever had any connotation but pejorative in society at large, as far as I know. I could be wrong about that, though. Word usage comes and goes, and euphemism will always be at work in language.

Thanks for the advice, DC, but I have been *DO*ing things in a positive way! Got any other advice?

I'm not afraid of the word "religion", and they haven't alienated me. I don't quite understand how non-believers can be religious, but, if they can be, then they probably would be offended by the Bright proclamations. Have they offended you?

It was not my intention to offend you, and I apologize if the remark seemed condescending. Perhaps I was reacting to the perceived implication that the proponents of the "Bright" label were like fundamentalists. I don't believe that they are.

Quite right, IMHO, but it is what the community decided to go with. Euphemism changed "mortician" into "funeral parlor director". In fact, the profession of "undertaker" has a long history of euphemistic modification. I don't expect "African American" to last forever, either, but it does pattern with "Chinese American", "Native American", "Polish American", and other similar rubrics that carry no negative stigma.

They are trying to use a word that has a positive connotation as a replacement for words that have a negative or stigmatized connotation. Being called an atheist can be taken as an insult. Being called a "Bright" cannot at this early stage. It is a matter of linguistic perception.

Forgive my pedanticism. As a licensed wordmonger, I tend to prefer the more precise jargon of my esoteric field. Popular usage can differ with the linguist's terminology. Indeed, I often correct people when they use the word "linguist" to mean "polyglot", even though "linguist" means "polyglot" in popular usage.

If you reread what I wrote, you will see that I used the expression de facto religious denomination. I used that expression precisely to avoid the objection that you have raised.

I would appreciate it if you would drop the �. You have made your point. I am saying that the Internet is the reason for the stroner sense of social unity. Nothing more.

Actually, my own take on this is that Dawkins, Dennett, and others are willing to go out on a limb for the community of people that they support. Silly as the name "Bright" is (and I do agree with you that it sounds silly), I'm not going to pass up the opportunity to support people that I admire and respect. I take them at face value--as sincere in what they are proposing. I won't abandon them, but I understand that many others may feel differently on this subject. Frankly, I respect your reservations and perceptions about the idea, but I'm going to be a "team player" on this one.

That's a very perceptive comment, VM. I don't expect "Bright" to be any more successful than "negro" or "colored" or "black" was. Euphemism does not stop social stigmatization. But it is a part of the social progress that leads to destigmatization. I believe that atheists and agnostics are heavily discriminated against in modern society. I don't agree with this discrimination. So I put the matter in perspective. We are embarking on a long process of social change. I urge patience and stamina. I'm not a leader in the movement, but I intend to support it as a foot soldier. If the "Bright" movement fails, then I'm quite open to further suggestions. Just don't tell me to lay down and accept the status quo.

viscousmemories

I didn�t believe for a moment that you intended to offend me or I wouldn�t have felt it necessary to call your attention to it. In any case I accept your apology (though I�ve never really said that before because it feels oddly pompous to me, as if to suggest that your apology is meaningless without my acceptance.)
That seems likely. Honestly I don�t think they�re refined enough as a group to make any determinations about their nature yet. I will say, though, that I think some of the proponents have exhibited some characteristics of the fundamentalists in defending this idea. For example, I have been harshly criticized more than once for even daring to challenge the value of the idea.
See, okay, right here. This point right here is what really pisses me off most about this whole campaign. There are hundreds, even thousands of people here and at the JREF fora (just to name two places I frequent) who comprise this community of people with a �naturalistic worldview�, none of whom were consulted before this �new word� was coined. It amuses me to no end that James Randi was a card-carrying member of this new movement before the subject was even discussed on the forum at his own website. In other words, I am of the opinion that a very small handful of prominent naturalists (Dawkins, Shermer, Randi, etc.) have decided, on behalf of the entire naturalist community, that this is something we can and should adopt. To me the arrogance inherent in that action is repulsive.
That�s another little pet peeve I have about them: They contradict themselves so much. For example they are adamant that Bright� is not a euphemism for atheist, but then they suggest that one of the benefits of the new term is that squeamish atheists can use it as such. To be very honest, I�m beginning to strongly suspect that they didn�t give a whole lot of thought to this whole thing. If they did, and this is the result, they really should have opened the issue up for discussion in the various fora before settling on a plan.
Okay I�m still genuinely confused. Are you saying that in this case �euphemism� is more precise than �neologism�? If not, I�m not sure what you�re saying. And if so, why?
My apologies. I didn�t really know what �de facto� meant and was too lazy to look it up.
I assure you I�m not using the trademark symbol to annoy you. I�m doing it because I refuse to accept this �new word� as defined by these people. To me it�s the trademark symbol of an ill-conceived movement, and until (and only if) they succeed in forcing it into common usage, I will treat it as nothing more. I feel bad enough talking about this issue as much as I do and reproducing their propaganda in the context of my arguments, because I really hate advertising for them.
Cool. I agree.
I really don�t mean to offend you at all, but I find this sentiment completely bizarre. As I mentioned earlier, Dawkins, Dennett, Shermer, Randi, and others don�t appear to have consulted any of the members of the community they theoretically represent prior to fully adopting and promoting this movement. To me that is utterly disrespectful and completely dismissive of us. How you could derive that they�re �out on a limb� for us baffles me.
Thanks, but I�ve been having this debate in so many places for so long now it�s more likely I inadvertently stole it than thought of it myself.
I�m totally with you that naturalism needs some serious PR help, and I would have no problem with being a foot soldier myself if I had been handed a weapon instead of a party favor. It�s not that I think the idea of a new euphemism can�t or won�t help our image, it�s just that I�m nearly certain that Bright�, if adopted, will have the opposite effect.

Thanks for your responses, btw. I obviously think this is a fascinating discussion.

vm

copernicus

Fair enough. I'm more forgiving of their hubris. I think that they are trying to start a movement for social change, and I've always been a sucker for that. I'm a relic of the 60's generation, and I've never really let go of the romanticism, I guess. Actually, I think that what they are attempting to do is a good thing. I'm more inclined to suspend my reservations and give them the benefit of the doubt.

I'm not sure what your real objection is, but why should you expect to be consulted? These kind of movements have to start somewhere, and it is a little unrealistic to expect everyone to be consulted in advance. The "Bright" guys may seem a little lame, but I don't see anyone else getting out in front to lead a charge. I like their chutspah. If you have a better idea, put it forward. All I would expect of the non-theist opposition to the idea is that they put forward a constructive alternative. Nobody owns the community of the faithless.

That isn't an unusual reaction. Those guys strike me as elitist. I have never known a political movement that wasn't started by elitists. Somebody has to stick their neck out, and these folks have the ego to carry it off. I certainly wouldn't get the attention of the media if I tried it. Having spent some time in the trenches during the 60's, I know how tough it can be to mobilize people.

I suspect that they've given it as much thought as anyone ever does before engaging in such things. I wouldn't be surprised if they made a lot of mistakes and had false starts. I'm still pleased that they want to make the effort.

All I'm saying is that linguists use the term "neologism" for a new word that has never been previously used before. As I've said before, the Brights people don't really understand what euphemism is, and they are uncomfortable with the idea that "atheism" carries a social stigma. They are reluctant to call their new term "euphemism" for that reason.

Anyway, as I've said before, I respect your different point of view. Let's see where this goes.

GunnerJ

And you are. If you have a taste for it, try listening to some modern rap music (or if you don't, just read the lyrics). Notice how many times the word "nigger" is used to refer to other black people. Eminem, a white rapper, even uses it, without any backlash from black people (he gets plenty of backlash for other things, though). This is not a perjoritive use. In fact, it implies a certain amount of familliarity, even respect for a close friend ("he's my nigger").

Also, the issue with the word "gay" has been answered in the first 4 or so pages of this thread.

Thus, words with negative connotations can be reclaimed. Your thesis statement on this subject is demonstratably, and has been demonstrated to be, incorrect.

Vylo

Bright would make us sounds like some odd sect of the carebears. Infidels sounds much better to me.

Rusting Car Bumper

That was not directed personally at you but at any organized non-belief movement in general. Any fair reading of my comments in this thread and in other threads would make that apparent.

That is, this "Bright" thing is supposed to be great but all the while we are not addressing the deeper root problems with our movements and organizations. The "Bright" proposal simply misses the mark entirely.

If you aren't afraid of the word "religion" then why be so quick to adopt a term which is claimed to be the opposite of it?

How can non-believers be religious? Hmmm.. UU, Church of Freethought, Fellowship of Reason, various forms of Bddhism, etc.

DC

Toto

Another insult that has been transvalued by its victims in the news lately is "chick" - inspired by the Dixie Chicks.

Chicks Rock the Vote

capsaicin67

The thing about the whole "Bright" moniker is that it is so darned easy to make fun of and not take seriously. We're trading in scorn for ridicule---not tremendously useful. The term should have made it at least challenging for Rush to get some traction on [actually, if it would have been, he would have simply ignored it altogether most likely]. Instead it's a big lob arcing gracefully over the homeplate of the xian/republican media machine----all that's left is the KERPLOWEEEEE----outta the park.

The point in getting a new brand name and slogan would be to sell your product better than the last one that was misunderstood. Not pick another one that you have to explain and try to make people [even your own people] think it's something other than what they think initially. Once again you end up using all your precious and meager resources overcoming your own p.r. instead of on other stuff. "Bright" is just a lousy brandname.

Copernicus wrote:
Thanks for the advice, DC, but I have been *DO*ing things in a positive way! Got any other advice?

Copernicus, I don't speak for DC or anything, and he can correct my interpretation of his intentions if I get it wrong, but I think he meant something a little larger in scope than simply "atheists [or insert your own nontheistic denomination as it may apply] don't do good things in a positive way ever"..... I think he meant that freethought collectives don't develop a *community* that practices or models much other than opposition. I know the wording he used is probably assailable along the lines you chose, but I think that is what he is speaking to in fact----the community level. And if he isn't, then I will anyway.

Seems to me that what really advanced the cause of civil rights in this country in the MLKjr era was the organization of the movement. The collective becoming so visible, so organized, so large, so effectively vocal, so dignified, so courageous, and so cooperatively united with other collectives ----that it made the issue impossible to ignore any longer. It forced the discussion, and it forced the reality, right up aginst the bigotry, right out in the light where everyone could compare the 2. An individual black man or woman, or many acting individually, could not have achieved this. I'm sure there were many whose individual actions and character entirely warranted full consideration and respect and equality prior to the movement. But that wasn't enough whether it "should" have been or not. Not for blacks nor gays unless I am mistaken.

And it's not going to be enough for nontheists either I have a feeling. Groups and monikers will come and go, but until there is a visible, active, vibrant, contributing community that stands for more than what it's against, well, I think the nontheists will be easy to marginalize. Those that would marginalize us are not going to en masse mend their ways by and large because we individually believe and say we think it's wrong. It's going to require a cultural transformation on a larger scale.

The only way to do that is to organize into effective communities, that contribute and integrate visibly into the larger communities in which they dwell, IMO. There is strength in numbers, and right now we're scattered, disorganized, an unknown quanitity, and unfocused. Thus we have no leverage in the cultural landscape and it is a great credit to the integrity [abeit not perfect]of our judicial system I spose that we have any legal successes even.

We have serious p.r. and organizational problems I think.

Foobles.....foobles....hmmmm...now that is starting to grow on me!

capsaicin67

DC,
I musta been posting right as you were posting, which makes a portion of my comments a bit redundant and out-of-sync!