GunnerJ

What, precisely, was this? The intent and nature of it is different, but to me the essense is the same: for these people, the word has been subverted and its meaning changed from a perjorative to an acceptable term. That this is an esoteric usage doesn't seem especially important to me.

Not at all. One of its meaning is "licentious" and this was the reason it was applied to gay people, as an insinuation of sexual immorality.

Do you have an acting definition of the term or not? In what way are you using it?

I just find it odd that you'd start replying to a thread without reading it first. If you had, you'd realize that I'm not going to even look for "evidence to the contrary," as your sources confirm my point: the meaning of the word "gay" as applied to homosexuals was subverted and reclaimed. Whether this occured "through the regular linguistic process of euphemistic substitution" is really quite irrelevent to me. What am I supposed to disprove? It seems like, at each turn, you admit that what I see as reclaimation occured, and yet, you continue to dispute what I'm saying. You won't even tell me how you're using the word "reclaim" so I can see if our disagreement is because we have differnet usages of the term.

This is a perfect example. What am I supposed to be arguing against here? This is exactly what I'm talking about, and yet you say this as if it shows some difficulty in words being "reclaimed." For hell's sake, can you just tell me what you mean when you say "reclaim" so that this will make some sense? Because this is how I see this discussion going:

You: Words can't be reclaimed.
Me: But these words were...
You: No they were <insert process identical to my idea of reclaimation> If you have any evidence to the contrary, please cite it. These words changed meaning through normal linguistic processes...
Me: What the hell? Didn't you just say they were reclaimed? What do you mean by "reclaimed" anyway?
You: Perhaps this wouldn't seem odd to you if you gave it more thought.
Me:

I hate to use such crude tools as scripts and smilies, but at this point, I can't see how else to get the point of my confusion and disagreement accross to you.

copernicus

Nice observation, DC. That point has been brought up in linguistic discussions. It happened a little later, and it is a generational thing. For my generation, "gay" is not in the least bit a synonym for "stupid".

GunnerJ, I am at a loss as to what to say further to you. I can only urge you to think about this issue more. There is no sense in with the "N-word" has come to have a neutral connotation in everyday English. If you can't understand this point, then we should just move on.

GunnerJ, there is a difference between word usage in Victorian English and the English of the late 60's. It had a slang "licentious" connotation in Victorian English. It did not in the English of the late 1960's. I can assure you of that, because I was very aware of the new use of "gay" in the 1960's. Like many who balk at the use of "Bright" and "African American", I originally balked at the use of "gay" to mean "homosexual". At the time, I felt that the renaming game was a "cop-out", if you still understand that term.

I am using it to mean a restoration of its original meaning in popular usage. Clearly, "gay" was used by homosexuals in the 1930's as an alternative to "queer", which they had used earlier. It did not become widely used in popular usage as a synonym for "homosexual" before the late 60's. At that point, it no longer had its earlier pejorative connotation. Is that clear to you?

Perhaps we do, and I have just cleared that up for you. I hope so. Remember that this whole discussion started between you and me when you replied to my posts, not the opposite. I have read the entire thread, and I still stand by my responses to ViscousMemories and to you. I don't see anything in past posts to overrule what I have said in this thread.

viscousmemories

Oh don’t get me wrong; I’m as much of a bleeding-heart liberal as the best of ‘em, and I have nothing against the people that started this movement at all. I’ve done some reading about them and they both seem very committed to promoting a positive view of non-believers, which I think is great. I just happen to think that this particular idea of theirs is gay.
My response was directed at your claim that “the community decided to go with” the word Bright™. I wasn’t complaining that nobody consulted me personally, I was simply pointing out that the vast majority of members of the naturalist community that have spoken up on this issue here and at the JREF site never “decided to go with it”. Forgive me for not going through every post in every thread on the subject here and at JREF to tally the votes just now (though I honestly might do it later) but I’d guess about 30% said we don’t need to do anything to improve our image, another 30% said we should do something, but not this, and another 30% said they think this actually hurts our image. It just so happens that several of the people among the 10% who seem to think this is the best idea since sliced bread are famous, influential, vocal and like to pretend they speak for all of us.
As I said, I’m sure they mean well. I also have agreed that the community of non-believers could use some image enhancement, and I admire revolutionaries. However, I think this movement was ill-conceived and I disagree that reckless action is preferable to inaction. Is there an active discussion forum consisting primarily of people with a “naturalistic worldview” larger than the IIDB? If there is, is that where they piloted this idea? If you decided to create a new word to describe a group of people who share a common worldview, wouldn’t you want to bounce your ideas off them first?
I’m not sure how to even respond to that. You think these people are elitist, you acknowledge that their choice of word is silly, and you recognize that they made no effort to consult you or anyone else we’re aware of in the community of naturalists before avidly promoting this idea, yet you “admire and respect” them, you don’t want to “abandon” them, and you intend to be a “team player on this one”. I'm truly mystified by your dedication. Wouldn't you rather be working on a better solution yourself than rallying behind a stupid one?
Why do you suspect that? Is it the dazzling new term they invented? Their state-of-the-art website? Their clearly defined objectives for the community of naturalists they yearn to represent? What about the Brights™ movement indicates to you that they have put in “as much thought as anyone ever does before engaging in such things”?
Fair enough. If I take nothing else away from this debate, I’m sure getting to know a lot about linguistics. In particular the etymology of the word “gay”, which somehow seems appropriate. You know, if I decide to create a new word to describe the worldview of 25 million or so people and try to insert it into common usage, I think I’ll talk to a linguist first. Seems a logical step, no?
And I yours. Onward and upward, I hope.

vm

copernicus

Oh, I agree. Two points, though. 1) The most vocal people do not necessarily represent the majority. 2) The number of people in the forums you mentioned represent a miniscule portion of nonbelievers in the world. I think that the strong counter-reaction to the euphemistic term is extremely natural. It is just the kind of reaction that greets every attempt at euphemism. The strange thing is that euphemism succeeds despite the initial negative response. I've been through these things before, and I urge that you keep an open mind, no matter how lame the new term sounds to you.

The key words here are "famous" and "influential". That is what makes them "elite". Like it or not, they do have a disproportionate voice on these matters. But these things don't always succeed, and maybe this will be drowned out by its critics, as you seem to think.

"Reckless action", VM? I find that a bit of an overreaction. I'm trying to understand the vehemence with which some greet this idea. Personally, I don't think that they had an obligation to air the idea here first. I think that they were more interested in a broader audience. Don't get me wrong. I love Internet Infidels. I just don't think that this discussion forum really constitutes a representative body of any kind. I'm sure that there are atheists out there who don't spend a lot of time in Internet discussion forums.

Gosh, no. I'd much rather be working on a better solution. I just don't recall where you offered one. Anyway, I think that they consulted plenty of people, just not everyone. I don't automatically reject "elitists". Sometimes people with a lot of ego come up with good ideas. Not all the time, mind you, but I do respect this particular lot of "elitists". Dawkins can be really arrogant as one of those types who refuses to suffer fools gladly.

I would be less than honest if I didn't admit my admiration for the intellects behind it. They aren't people to be dismissed lightly.

Absolutely not. Linguists are trained to observe, not participate. They have a propensity for making absolutely rational decisions about language that are politically stupid. (I'm not speaking about myself, of course. ) Here is a possibly apocryphal tale that I was told in grad school: In the early days of post-colonial Africa, a linguist was asked to recommend an official language for an emerging nation. The linguist picked the majority language, which didn't happened to represent the language of the ruling class. He was executed. For that reason, several East African nations have Swahili as an official language. Swahili was originally a trade language that had no native speakers.

So, I'm not making any predictions about the fate of "Bright". I'm just saying that it is too early to tell how the idea will fare. Perhaps the time is not right for metaphysical materialists to make an impact on society at large. Maybe that is a something that a later generation will choose to pursue. If you can propose an alternative that has a better chance of succeeding, please suggest it. Otherwise, you just appear to be interested in obstructing the movement.

Ronin

One really good Mad TV or The Daily Show parody and this whole 'Bright' bubble will burst like any good tub fart.

viscousmemories

Okay, it's late and I'm dead tired, but I want to respond to this point before I go to bed. Your comment begs several questions:

1. Is there a problem that needs solving? (You and I agree that the community of naturalists could use some better PR, but that doesn't necessarily make it so)

2. If we decide there is a problem that needs solving, is coming up with a new name for our community the most effective solution?

3. If we decide that coming up with a new name is the most effective solution, why must we move ahead with whatever ludicrous suggestion someone puts forth rather than putting the brakes on the whole deal until we come up with a better idea?

and

4. Regardless of whether or not we put the brakes on now, why is the onus on me to come up with a better word just because I challenged the adequacy of the one being promoted?

As you might guess from this response, you are correct in your assessment that I am trying to obstruct this movement. I think it's ill-conceived and bullheaded, and I'm almost positive it will fail. If it does get increasing publicity over the coming months, then backfires, blows up or otherwise dissolves (as I suspect it will) and we have concluded that creating a new term was the most effective way to promote a new image for ourselves, I think we will have lost a lot of credibility as a group when we try to push for yet another new word to come into common usage while people are still pointing and laughing about this one.

vm

GunnerJ

This is the last straw man of my position I will deal with from you. I defy you to demonstrate that I ever claimed any such thing. Since I didn't you are lying about my position in an attempt to embarrass me. I do not have to deal with these insults.

Tony

I agree that “atheist” sounds like just the opposite of “theist” and that is what confuses a lot of people. I think that there is more difference between theists and atheists that just between definitions of these words. I think that there is a principal difference between theists and atheists. The difference between theists and atheists is that theists “believe” and atheists “know”. That’s why the name for people who only know or don’t know (and brave and honest enough to admit that they don’t know something and don’t use some fantasies instead of knowledge) should be “knowledger”.

Cheers.

capsaicin67

As an interesting aside, in Benjamin Franklin's autobio he shares that he once considered starting a new religion to be called, "The Society of the Free and Easy" [if memory serves]. It fell by the wayside, but he comments that he continued to feel it would have been successful if he had pursued it and that it was a good idea overall.

He was a pretty succesful and pragmatic fellow,genius/hero of popular culture. But this, too, sounds like a totally goofball moniker to me. So in that sense, the Brights aren't in awful company, though I hope the experiment continues to evolve.

copernicus

I think that there is a problem. It is shameful that people can openly condemn a minority on the basis of their belief or lack of belief about religion. A goal of the movement is to make it socially unacceptable to admit prejudice against atheists in the same way that it is unacceptable to stigmatize religious groups publicly.

I don't think that there is a "most effective solution", but it is certainly part of the mix. Language is a very powerful political tool. It raises very strong emotions, as we've seen here.

Because that isn't the way political movements work, and I can't imagine what kind of process you have in mind. Is everybody supposed to experience some kind of epiphany or catharsis before we do anything? There is a proposal out there that you don't like and that you don't think will succeed. What I can't understand is why you don't just get out of the way and let it fizzle on its own. Or, better yet, just suggest a better alternative. Why do you feel so furious about it?

You have every right to challenge the adequacy of a proposal, and I certainly agree with many of your criticisms. What we disagree on is the consequences of failure. I don't think that we have anything at all to lose, but you do.

I suspect that you don't really grasp our position in society. We have been completely marginalized. You fear looking ridiculous before a society that has open contempt for your beliefs. I don't really care whether they mock us. We have to engage their attention first if we expect to overcome the problem. Every social movement has its "don't rock the boat" elements. Usually, those people represent a conservative element that see their own status or role in the movement being usurped or weakened by others. The approach that I urge is to accept the efforts of some activists, even if you disagree with their methods, and try to help shape the movement in the direction you want it to go. Simply hollering "Stop!" is not helpful.

If and when this "Bright" movement stumbles, there will be another to follow it. What we need to do now is raise the consciousness of our own people as well as that of outsiders. We aren't going to get anywhere pulling in different directions.

Gunnerj, you yourself worried that we might be equivocating on the term "reclaim". Go back and read your original comment on my post, where you raised this racial epithet as counterevidence to my statements. Ultimately, you claimed that the racial slur "nigger" had somehow been reclaimed, and I demurred. By "reclaim", I meant to "assume a neutral or positive connotation", and I think that I made that clear in my posts. I resent your accusation that I have lied or intentionally distorted your words. Let's try to avoid insults, please. I am more than a little surprised by your emotional responses, given your position as a moderator.