Who squirms at the word bright?

[viscousmemories]

Brights aren't a natural herd; we're individuals. We don't make good followers

Hence my original point:

Anyway yeah, I've always thought the "Herding atheists is like herding cats" similie ludicrous. It's like saying, "Trying to get a bunch of independent thinkers to think the same is difficult". Um... duh?

(thus making us immune to cults)

Well all but one, anyway.

You're confusing the herd with the cowboys.

Nah, you're confusing being herded with free will.

vm

 

[Kerberos]

But "queer" IS insulting, and its antonym is "homophobe"...

I fail to see what you point is. Also queer is only insulting in when relating to homosexuals, and it's antonym is either normal or hetrosexual, not homophobe.

 

[Kimpatsu]

Hence my original point

No really.

Well all but one, anyway.

And which cult would that be?

Nah, you're confusing being herded with free will.

Surely, allowing oneself to be herded is the antithesis of free will?

 

[Kimpatsu]

I fail to see what you point is. Also queer is only insulting in when relating to homosexuals, and it's antonym is either normal or hetrosexual, not homophobe.

What do you mean, "only when it's applied to homosexuals"? "Queer" can only be applied to gays; you can't call a straight person queer! The antonym is certainly NOT "normal", because that implies being gay is somehow abnormal.
As to my point, I'll spell it out: expressing a non-supernaturalistic worldview invites antipathy from certain quarters. One commonly levelled accusation is that rationalsts lack the capacity for joy, such as the warm glow belieivers feel in their made-up gods. Coining the term "bright" is an attempt to negate that criticism.
All clear now?
PS: "its antonym", not "it is antonym".

 

[Reginald]

What do you mean, "only when it's applied to homosexuals"? "Queer" can only be applied to gays; you can't call a straight person queer! The antonym is certainly NOT "normal", because that implies being gay is somehow abnormal.
As to my point, I'll spell it out: expressing a non-supernaturalistic worldview invites antipathy from certain quarters. One commonly levelled accusation is that rationalsts lack the capacity for joy, such as the warm glow belieivers feel in their made-up gods. Coining the term "bright" is an attempt to negate that criticism.
All clear now?
PS: "its antonym", not "it is antonym".

If you said person X is a queer, then your meaning would be clear enough (and somewhat unpleasant IMO). If you said person X "is queer" then you have some ambiguity, I would immediately take it to suggest that there is something strange about the person, I certainly wouldn't assume you were talking about their sexuality at all. The same applies to "He's a queer chap", again that's almost (IMO) unambiguously talking about something other than his sexuality.

I suspect that it is regional though. So there you have the take of an Englishman.


Back to the plot..............

 

[viscousmemories]

No really.

And which cult would that be?

Surely, allowing oneself to be herded is the antithesis of free will?

Nevermind. Only non-Brights™ seem to get my humor.

 

[Kimpatsu]

If you said person X is a queer, then your meaning would be clear enough (and somewhat unpleasant IMO). If you said person X "is queer" then you have some ambiguity, I would immediately take it to suggest that there is something strange about the person, I certainly wouldn't assume you were talking about their sexuality at all. The same applies to "He's a queer chap", again that's almost (IMO) unambiguously talking about something other than his sexuality.
I suspect that it is regional though. So there you have the take of an Englishman.

An Englishman who's half a century out of date and belongs in an Enid Blyton novel. "Queer" hasn't meant "eccentric" for at least 50 years. (In one of her junior detective novels, Enid Blyton had a chapter entitled, "A Very Queer Boy". I've no idea whether it's been retitled, but the book itself is surely still in print.)
Similarly, no one ever says "chap" any more. "Bloke" or similar, yes, but not chap. "Queer chap" belongs to the same era as calling planes "kites" and men calling each other "good eggs". These days, "queer" is a homophobic term for "gay". It has no other meaning.

 

[Kimpatsu]

Nevermind. Only non-Brights™ seem to get my humor.

That was humour? I'd be surprised if anyone got it! I guess we're not bright enough...

 

[viscousmemories]

That was humour? I'd be surprised if anyone got it! I guess we're not bright enough...

My, my, so hostile this morning. Wassamatter, is your little Brights™ beanie on a little tight today?

 

[Kimpatsu]

My, my, so hostile this morning. Wassamatter, is your little Brights™ beanie on a little tight today?

Morning? It's Sunday night here. You Californians are so behind the times...

 

[viscousmemories]

Morning? It's Sunday night here. You Californians are so behind the times...

Freak!

 

[Kerberos]

What do you mean, "only when it's applied to homosexuals"? "Queer" can only be applied to gays; you can't call a straight person queer! The antonym is certainly NOT "normal", because that implies being gay is somehow abnormal.

You're wrong, queer is an old fashioned expression, for something deviating from the normal or expected, the antonym of it is something not deviating from the normal or expected that is something normal, so a heterosexual can be called queer. It also appears the word has a secondary meaning as something of a questionable nature or character, so apparently it can be used as an insult even when not directed a gays, but it doesn't have to be an insult. The usage of the word as a slur against homosexuals is derived from its original meanings. Also why do you treat the word abnormal as if it was an insult, normality is statistical, and hardly a virtue in itself.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=queer

As to my point, I'll spell it out: expressing a non-supernaturalistic worldview invites antipathy from certain quarters. One commonly levelled accusation is that rationalsts lack the capacity for joy, such as the warm glow belieivers feel in their made-up gods. Coining the term "bright" is an attempt to negate that criticism.
All clear now?

I'm perfectly aware of why the word bright is being used. What I don't understand is why you pointing out that queer is an insult has to do with anything. Also if you want to counter the assertion that people with a non-supernatural outlook aren't depressed, you might want to pick a word that indicated joy, rather than one which indicates intelligence. The two things are hardly the same, and as I pointed out, a word indicating joy wouldn't be insulting to other people.

PS: "its antonym", not "it is antonym".

I know, sloppy mistake on my part.

 

[Kimpatsu]

Freak!

As in "Fabulous Furry"?

 

[Kimpatsu]

You're wrong, queer is an old fashioned expression, for something deviating from the normal or expected, the antonym of it is something not deviating from the normal or expected that is something normal, so a heterosexual can be called queer. It also appears the word has a secondary meaning as something of a questionable nature or character, so apparently it can be used as an insult even when not directed a gays, but it doesn't have to be an insult. The usage of the word as a slur against homosexuals is derived from its original meanings. Also why do you treat the word abnormal as if it was an insult, normality is statistical, and hardly a virtue in itself.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=queer

No, you're wrong; no one, and I mean no one uses "queer" to mean "strange" any more. That use passed out of fashion 50 years ago. It sounds so anachronistic, I remember even in the early 70s as a child sniggering with my sister over the Enid Blyton usage, and showing the relevant chapter in the book to our mother.

I'm perfectly aware of why the word bright is being used. What I don't understand is why you pointing out that queer is an insult has to do with anything. Also if you want to counter the assertion that people with a non-supernatural outlook aren't depressed, you might want to pick a word that indicated joy, rather than one which indicates intelligence. The two things are hardly the same, and as I pointed out, a word indicating joy wouldn't be insulting to other people.

The word "bright" does indicate joy. Bright, happy, bubbly. All to do with being upbeat.

I know, sloppy mistake on my part.

I've beheaded people for less...

 

[Kerberos]

No, you're wrong; no one, and I mean no one uses "queer" to mean "strange" any more. That use passed out of fashion 50 years ago. It sounds so anachronistic, I remember even in the early 70s as a child sni**ering with my sister over the Enid Blyton usage, and showing the relevant chapter in the book to our mother.

I did say it was oldfashioned, but the fact that it is seldom used anymore doesn't change the fact that it can be used that way.

The word "bright" does indicate joy. Bright, happy, bubbly. All to do with being upbeat.

It has far more to do with being intelligent (or with being illuminated) I would regard it as far more queer (so there) to use bright to mean happy than to use queer to mean strange.
Edited to add: I also think that bright as happy can only be used in very specific contexts. I don't think you can say I'm feeling bright today. Can any of the of the native English speakers on the board confirm this and/or that it is an oldfashioned or very rare ussage?

I've beheaded people for less...

Just to irritate you I've decided not to use spellcheck in this post.

 

[Kimpatsu]

I did say it was oldfashioned, but the fact that it is seldom used anymore doesn't change the fact that it can be used that way.

Only if you want to sound old-fashioned, and incapable of speaking 21st-century English.

It has far more to do with being intelligent (or with being illuminated) I would regard it as far more queer (so there) to use bright to mean happy than to use queer to mean strange. Can any of the of the native English speakers on the board confirm this?

What do you think I am, if not a native English speaker?
"Bright" means both light of heart and intelligent. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. Not all intellectual atheists are dour. The term "Bright" is a good one.

Just to irritate you I've decided not to use spellcheck in this post.

Then I won't tip my foil.

 

[Kerberos]

What do you think I am, if not a native English speaker?

Your profile says you're in Osaka, I assumed you were Japanesse.

"Bright" means both light of heart and intelligent. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. Not all intellectual atheists are dour.

I know that, I checked with a dictionary but the fact that I didn't know make me think it's a rather unusual use of the word. Of course that might just be my ego speaking.

Then I won't tip my foil.

En garde!

 

[Reginald]

An Englishman who's half a century out of date and belongs in an Enid Blyton novel. "Queer" hasn't meant "eccentric" for at least 50 years. (In one of her junior detective novels, Enid Blyton had a chapter entitled, "A Very Queer Boy". I've no idea whether it's been retitled, but the book itself is surely still in print.)
Similarly, no one ever says "chap" any more. "Bloke" or similar, yes, but not chap. "Queer chap" belongs to the same era as calling planes "kites" and men calling each other "good eggs". These days, "queer" is a homophobic term for "gay". It has no other meaning.

Wrong. It has other meaning.

You do not know how I speak, you do not know how I understand words.

You may think that some words are no longer in common usage, queer is NOT only used to describe homosexuals, sorry. You may think that I am 50 years out of date but I assure you I am not. Yes I still use the word "chap", yes I can still use the word "queer" and make it's context completely clear.

For you to claim otherwise is simply untrue. Sorry.

 

[CapelDodger]

I don't like the term at all.

"Bright" in "bright beer" means light and effervescent. For what that's worth.

Kerberos: As a Yorkshireman might put it, "Everybody's queer but me and thee, and I'm not so sure about thee".

 

[UnTrickaBLe]

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

Come on. Who you trying to fool?