Who squirms at the word bright?

[komencanto]

I know I do. I just hate it. It sounds so arrogant. Did they have to use a word that means smart? I think it will do more harm to the skeptic/atheist movement than both of those names.

Who still squirmed at the use of that word in his commentry this week?

Later:

I just thought I´ld quote someone way down on this thread.

"It seems like most people were pretty much ok with bright except that they found it antagonistic, ambiguous, arrogant, condescending, confusing, too cutesy, pretentious, puerile, silly, and/or dorky."

 

[Dogwood]

yes. still squirming.

 

[aerocontrols]

Yeah.

It's a bad idea whose time will never come.

 

[Moose]

Very much so, as I'd expressed in another thread nearby.

Far too antagonistic and arrogant.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

I'm not particularly comfortable with it. Perhaps if it becomes a commonly accepted term that is close to making it into a dictionary, I'll feel better about it.

Otherwise, IMHO, it sounds like you are saying you are "smarter" than other people.

Yeah, it makes me squirm a bit.

And welcome to the forum, komencanto.

 

[arcticpenguin]

Very much so, as I'd expressed in another thread nearby.

Far too antagonistic and arrogant.

I just thought it sounded dorky. If it's antagonistic and arrogant though, sign me up!

 

[Dogwood]

But it's antagonistic, arrogant and dorky.

 

[john_v_h]

Chalk up another squirm. I think I actually cringed when I read it in the commentary.

 

[KelvinG]

Yah, I can't say I like it. It sounds a little dorky.

 

[Blue Monk]

I'm not fond of it.

I can think of other similar terms that I didn't like that I have grown comfortable with but I don't think this is a term that will ever make the mainstream vocabulary.

 

[Kimpatsu]

But it's antagonistic, arrogant and dorky.

That's why it's been coopted: to raise your consciousness. I hate describing myself as an "atheist", not only because it sounds stuffy as Richard Dawkins wrote, but also because, like Douglas Adams described, too many people try to correct me all the time: "Oh, you mean an agnostic". No, I bloody well don't! Now, that's arrogant: assuming I can't select le mot juste for myself. Nor do I want to take the Adams line in calling myself a "militant atheist" to offset the inevitable "Oh, you mean agnostic" reaction, because "militant" sounds... well, too militant. I know the Abrahamic god doesn't exist, so I really need a single, short, sharp, snappy word to describe myself. Bright will do just fine. You feel uncomfortable with it? That just means your consciousness hasn't been raised yet. Do you still squirm at "gay" as "homosexual"? Consciousness-raising is the name of the game, and I'm glad we've coopted such an upbeat word to describe our nontheistic world view. I am well and truly out of the closet. Mum, dad... I'm a bright!

 

[Kimpatsu]

I can think of other similar terms that I didn't like that I have grown comfortable with but I don't think this is a term that will ever make the mainstream vocabulary.

Give me five years from today (23 July 2003) to prove you wrong. Let's see if I can get the mayor of Liverpool to use it during their speech as Liverpool becomes European Capital of Culture.

 

[NoDeity]

I like it. It's not as if there's something wrong with being antagonistic, arrogant and dorky.

 

[MRC_Hans]

It is basically a misnomer, as skeptics are not neccessarily brighter that the next guy. But we do need a positive expression, and we need one that does not raise presumptions about some particular religious standpoint.

And we might as well take it before some woowoo group snatches it

That sait, I don not feel quite comfortable using it, well, yes I squirm just a little. I'll get used to it. The day of recognition comes when some woowoo says something like "even brights admit that ...."

Hans

 

[Kimpatsu]

It is basically a misnomer, as skeptics are not neccessarily brighter that the next guy.

I thought we shone with the light of reason.

 

[xouper]

I'm already on record that I don't like the new label, "bright". (In this thread for example.)

If the new label catches on despite all its baggage, I predict we'll also being seeing bumper stickers like this:

<blockquote>Brights aren't too bright.</blockquote>The opponents of the naturalist world view already throw enough mud. No need to hand them free mud.

I like the idea of having a nice upbeat label for the naturalist world view, but I would prefer one without any baggage.

 

[BillyJoe]

I don't see "Bright" taking off and this is fortunate because it would be an easy target for ridicule.
I don't think there should even be a term but, if there must be one, I would go for the rather ironic "Individualist".

 

[JamesM]

I'm having a right old squirm-up, too.

But I think there's some merit to the idea that it's just the newness of the word that causes discomfort. Like gay. No-one says "what are they trying to get at? Like, heterosexuals aren't happy?!".

Perhaps there needs to be a connotation-free made-up word instead. Like 'malooma'.

 

[Blue Monk]

Give me five years from today (23 July 2003) to prove you wrong. Let's see if I can get the mayor of Liverpool to use it during their speech as Liverpool becomes European Capital of Culture.

You're on.

Loser buys the beer (that way there are no losers).

Of course, I'd have more faith in your ability if you had not predicted in the same breath the rise of Liverpool to become the European Capital of Culture.

 

[Kimpatsu]

I'm already on record that I don't like the new label, "bright". (In this thread for example.)

If the new label catches on despite all its baggage, I predict we'll also being seeing bumper stickers like this:

<blockquote>Brights aren't too bright.</blockquote>

Brighter than you, buddy.
See, we can mud sling even better!