Who squirms at the word bright?

[tamiO]

Question for the group: Did homosexuals select the word 'gay'? When did this occur? Who was behind it?

I am googling away

http://www.users.wineasy.se/hattom/GayDefinition.html

From a link there, we go to Gertrude Stein.

Gertrude Stein had lived abroad since 1903 and been in Paris for many years. She was sought out by visiting Americans. In the 1920´s, she became the center person for the gay U.S. colony in Paris.

Gertude Stein was the first to explain to the post-war expatriates that they were a Lost Generation. Ernest Hemingway later showed them what she had meant.

Also, Gertude Stein was among the first to use the word "gay" in its modern sense.

 

[jj]

Makes me squirm.

Then once... err, never mind ...

 

[Blue Monk]

I just found this by accident on another board:

That's kinda how I feel about it too.

I tend to agree. I know it was not the intent but I would prefer a more neutral term doesn't have such a smarter-than-thou conotation.

 

[Kimpatsu]

If Dawkins wants to present arguments for his worldview, that's fine. But it's not intellectually honest to associate a word with positive associations ("bright") with a topic it has nothing to do with. It is if the religious people adopted the word "honorable" to mean "belief in God," and went around saying "I'm an honorable."

The difference being, theists, particularly Christians, are not victimised in our society. We live in a world where Bush senior can say that atheists aren't true citizens and schoolkids are obliged to pledge allegiance "under god". Legislation in the United Kingdom permits employers to discriminate against atheists. Our situation is akin to that of the gay community during the 1950s. We need to raise consciousness regarding who and what we are. Being an atheist is not devient, it's not evil, and it's not abnormal. So, just as "gay" has become a snappy term for homosexual, so "bright" can become a snappy term for atheists. As Dawkins pointed out, this is all about consciousness-raising. Until the discrimination ends...

 

[livius drusus]

Gay and bright simply cannot be equated. Bright is invented out of whole cloth, a linguistic parlor game that reeks of pseudo-intellectual foppery. The redefinition of gay was paid for in activist blood. Annalee Newitz took the words right out of my brain.

Homosexuals did not "hijack" the word gay. They were called gay as an insult by other people – the same people who called them pansy and nelly, which also happen to be very "up" words. Gay activists didn't sit down together, design a poorly written Web site, and say, "Let's pick a nice word to call ourselves so that people won't hate us!" Nope, they fought tooth and f*****g nail to be respected, and they got beaten up by cops and fired from their jobs and sent to jail and raped. Finally they were so miserable and pissed off that they just started calling themselves gay to take the insulting sting out of the word. That's why people in my generation call themselves queers. That's why blacks call themselves n*****s, and why people who grew up in trailer parks call themselves trash. This ain't no f*****g marketing campaign for "Internet constituencies." It's survivor's pride.

Article edited by me to comply with JREF content regulations

 

[Bearguin]

I'd pick a less charged word. I have no faith the the brights are universally bright or that deists are universally dim. And I don't believe the comment that all atheists won't believe in non-bright things (i.e. dowsing, spoon bending etc.).

What's wrong with simply being a sceptic?

 

[Kimpatsu]

Gay and bright simply cannot be equated. Bright is invented out of whole cloth, a linguistic parlor game that reeks of pseudo-intellectual foppery. The redefinition of gay was paid for in activist blood. Annalee Newitz took the words right out of my brain.

And what are we doing, if not activism? How many people in the Islamic world have been accused of apostasy for daring not to believe? And how far do you think Dubya and John Ashcroft would persecute us if he thought he could get away with it?

 

[livius drusus]

And what are we doing, if not activism? How many people in the Islamic world have been accused of apostasy for daring not to believe? And how far do you think Dubya and John Ashcroft would persecute us if he thought he could get away with it?

Disbelief is not activism. The Godless Americans March on Washington was activism. Me sitting at home being me is not. The reality is that as a group, nonbelievers have little in common beyond their lack of belief and are therefore hard to mobilize. We also tend to live relatively privileged lives, never encountering anything like the life and livelihood-threatening bigotry gay people or ethnic minorities experience every day.

So to me your persecution chimera is just that: a melodramatic page out of the fundie handbook. I am not a Christian. I feel no need to cry oppression because some people, even powerful ones, have a poor opinion of my character based on their presuppositions and ignorance. I certainly will not adopt some puerile coinage and call it a worldview because those same people who you claim would persecute me as soon as look at me might be meme-washed into thinking I'm less threatening or more upbeat as a bright than as an atheist.

 

[Kimpatsu]

So the march is activism, but that doesn't count?
You think atheists aren't persecuted against, read this by the National Secular Society.
End discrimination now! Keep church and state separate!

 

[xouper]

livius drusus: I certainly will not adopt some puerile coinage and call it a worldview because those same people who you claim would persecute me as soon as look at me might be meme-washed into thinking I'm less threatening or more upbeat as a bright than as an atheist.

I'd like to nominate this for Mercutio's Monthly Language Award. In fact I did, here.

 

[livius drusus]

So the march is activism, but that doesn't count?

The march is activism. The-brights.net isn't. In fact, this movement (and I use the term loosely) was specifically designed as a shortcut to garner societal approval of a minority position the way the gay or women's rights movements did by fighting tooth and nail without having to do any actual work. Make it sound cheery, spread it around and everyone will suddenly love us. Easy peasy. Only say the word and I shall be healed.

You think atheists aren't persecuted against, read this by the National Secular Society.

That press release is discussing discrimination in religious organizations. I understand the concern about the CoE dictating legislative language, but I am in no way opposed to Church institutions, including schools, being allowed to discriminate in hiring. I think it's despicable, but that's religion for you.

End discrimination now! Keep church and state separate!

Fine sentiment. Of course, the separation of church of state would forbid government intervention in church affairs, including hiring practices, so I really don't see how it would rectify the state of affairs described in your link.

In any case, I notice you didn't say "End discrimination now! Make up a new word for the non-religious to fool the archdiocese into hiring us! Oh and, um, gay people too. No, they don't get a new word. They already have gay. But hire them too!"

 

[Kimpatsu]

The march is activism. The-brights.net isn't. In fact, this movement (and I use the term loosely) was specifically designed as a shortcut to garner societal approval of a minority position the way the gay or women's rights movements did by fighting tooth and nail without having to do any actual work. Make it sound cheery, spread it around and everyone will suddenly love us. Easy peasy. Only say the word and I shall be healed.

So your definition of activism is waving placards and shouting a lot? Amnesty International's letter writing campaign to heads of states with political prisoners is too sedentary to count as activism? Maybe we should chain ourselves to the railings outside the White House as our first step. Even the Godless March began with an idea, you know.

Originally posted by livius drusus
That press release is discussing discrimination in religious organizations. I understand the concern about the CoE dictating legislative language, but I am in no way opposed to Church institutions, including schools, being allowed to discriminate in hiring. I think it's despicable, but that's religion for you.

Well, that's where we differ, because I'm opposed to any discrimination in hiring. An atheist can teach maths or modern languages just as well as a theist; why exclude the atheist for reasons that have nothing to do with their ability to teach? Perhaps skin colour is also a factor in hiring practices? Or gender? Or ethnicity? Or hair colour? Or baldness? Or favourite football team? (The latter being a religion to which I can subscribe! Liverpool! Liverpool! Liverpool! )
Put another way, why do you excuse (i.e., condone) religious discrimination, but not racial discrimination? Or is there a difference?

Originally posted by livius drusus
Fine sentiment. Of course, the separation of church of state would forbid government intervention in church affairs, including hiring practices, so I really don't see how it would rectify the state of affairs described in your link.

Not quite, because whilst the separation prevents religious bodies from meddling in state affairs such as education, it does not exempt said bodies from the law, and discrimination is against the law... or should be.

Originally posted by livius drusus
In any case, I notice you didn't say "End discrimination now! Make up a new word for the non-religious to fool the archdiocese into hiring us! Oh and, um, gay people too. No, they don't get a new word. They already have gay. But hire them too!"

That's right, I didn't say it because I don't want to fool the archdiocese into anything. I'm not trying to conceal my militant atheism behind a codeword or other smokscreen. I'm well and truly out of the closet; I just don't want to be discriminated against for being out.

 

[livius drusus]

So your definition of activism is waving placards and shouting a lot? Amnesty International's letter writing campaign to heads of states with political prisoners is too sedentary to count as activism? Maybe we should chain ourselves to the railings outside the White House as our first step. Even the Godless March began with an idea, you know.

There are many kinds of activism. The Godless March is one example. AI's letter-writing is another. My friend, a police officer in the scarily Christian state of Mississippi, informing the DA that he will no longer swear on the Bible in court is a magnificent example of individual activism.

What is most certainly not activism, however, is the promotion of a cosmetic change specifically intended to bypass people's conscious minds and the prejudices therein while simultaneously expending no effort whatsoever to counter the prejudices themselves.

Well, that's where we differ, because I'm opposed to any discrimination in hiring. <snip>
Put another way, why do you excuse (i.e., condone) religious discrimination, but not racial discrimination? Or is there a difference?

I neither excuse nor condone discrimination of any kind. I simply do not believe the government of the United States has the Constitutional wherewithal to interfere with what is unquestionably the free exercise of religion. One of the things that makes so many religions so opprobrious are their long enemy lists. Discrimination may be vile, but it is without a doubt integral to the practice of certain religions.

I am not qualified to opine on the UK's legal grounds for prohibiting or not prohibiting discrimination. I find the legal requirements of EU membership to be a fascinating new element and I look forward to seeing how the British government will manage to comply with its requirements and protect its pet religion at the same time.

Not quite, because whilst the separation prevents religious bodies from meddling in state affairs such as education, it does not exempt said bodies from the law, and discrimination is against the law... or should be.

In the Bill of Rights, the establishment clause is coupled with a free exercise clause. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." A church refusing employment to atheists on moral or pastoral grounds is indulging in a little free exercise. Just because it's contemptible doesn't mean it isn't Constitutionally protected. Many reprehensible positions are upheld by the Bill of Rights.

That's right, I didn't say it because I don't want to fool the archdiocese into anything. I'm not trying to conceal my militant atheism behind a codeword or other smokscreen. I'm well and truly out of the closet; I just don't want to be discriminated against for being out.

How is an atheist calling herself a bright going to end discrimination unless it is via obfuscation of reality? *waves hand. These aren't the atheists you're looking for. You can go about your bright business. Move along. Move along.

 

[bPer]

I do more than squirm! I fume. I curse. I shout at the walls, demanding to know how people I hold in such high esteem can fall for such a lame, ill-conceived and arrogant idea!

I have no problem with the concept of coming up with a new term to replace the words like 'atheist' that have taken on unsavory connotations in certain circles. Personally, 'freethinker' appeals to me. I do have a huge problem with 'bright', though.

When I was a kid in the '60s, before 'gay liberation' really caught on, the only person I ever heard using 'gay' in regular conversation (i.e. not Christmas songs) was my grandmother, and she used it as a synonym for 'pleasant'. 'Gay' was a word that had already fallen out of day-to-day use. The soon-to-be gay community jumped on a chance to appropriate a word that had fallen from use to their advantage. Nobody (I dare say) was confused by the new meaning of 'gay', particularly with all the media attention at the time. And, since it was nobody's loss (except my grandmother's), the new meaning was readily accepted by the public.

'Bright' is a whole different matter. It's not only a word in very common usage, it's 'overloaded' (to use a computer term) with several meanings. Dawkins and Randi and the others are attempting to force the entire English-speaking world to dump a perfectly good word because their small minority wants to appropriate it for their PR purposes! What arrogance! What folly!

Before someone brings up the "but we mean 'bright' as a noun" crap, just think about 'gay' again. It is a noun, yes, but it's also an adjective. If the 'brights' get together for a parade, it will be called a 'bright parade'. Dawkins is appropriating 'bright' as an adjective too.

And what word are we supposed to use as a substitute for 'bright' in the current sense? I'm sorry, but the Bright Star Atlas is not going to be renamed the Atlas of Stars of Higher Light Intensity Than Normal". Come on!

Every time Randi mis-uses the word 'bright', my esteem for him drops another notch. I sincerely hope that he's reading this.

Sorry for the rant. Thanks for listening.

bPer

 

[Kimpatsu]

There are many kinds of activism. The Godless March is one example. AI's letter-writing is another. My friend, a police officer in the scarily Christian state of Mississippi, informing the DA that he will no longer swear on the Bible in court is a magnificent example of individual activism.

So is this exercise in consciousness-raising. Using it in newspaper articles and on these boards is a splendid example of activism. Or do you define activism specifically to exclude "bright" as an adjective, because if so, no amount of reason will sway you.

What is most certainly not activism, however, is the promotion of a cosmetic change specifically intended to bypass people's conscious minds and the prejudices therein while simultaneously expending no effort whatsoever to counter the prejudices themselves.

The use of "gay" as a synonym for homosexual was also initally cosmetic, because it had not yet permeated deeply enough into people's minds to be the obvious word for which they reached when they wished to describe such people. The last part of your sentence is a nonsense, because the very objective of coopting the word "bright" is to raise people's consciousness with regard to atheists as human beings. It is indeed expending great effort to eliminate prejudice.

I neither excuse nor condone discrimination of any kind. I simply do not believe the government of the United States has the Constitutional wherewithal to interfere with what is unquestionably the free exercise of religion. One of the things that makes so many religions so opprobrious are their long enemy lists. Discrimination may be vile, but it is without a doubt integral to the practice of certain religions.

This is not the free exercise of religion; it is discrimination. Or didn't you get the explanation about selection based on religious conviction has no impact on a teacher's ability to teach, any more than does the teacher's skin colour, gender, or sexual orientation? Why are you against some forms of discrimination, and not others? Where religions do discriminate, they must be no more exempt from the legal penalties and other consequences than any type of discrimination. And isn't there a line in the Constitution about "Congress shall make no test of religion"?

I am not qualified to opine on the UK's legal grounds for prohibiting or not prohibiting discrimination. I find the legal requirements of EU membership to be a fascinating new element and I look forward to seeing how the British government will manage to comply with its requirements and protect its pet religion at the same time.

The British government and two-faced Blair, the smarmy vicar, are highly adroit at sidestepping thorny issues like the incompatibility of religious discrimination with EU law on human rights. Where the two come into conflict, they simply ignore their legal obligations and allow the status quo to reign unchecked. This is because the smarmy vicar wants the Church of England on his side--he wants them to endorse him for a third term as the "godly candidate" and because, in his heart of hearts, the Rev. Blair believes that such religious discrimination is a good thing. He even backed YEC school Emmanuel in their teaching of Young Earth Creationism!

In the Bill of Rights, the establishment clause is coupled with a free exercise clause. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." A church refusing employment to atheists on moral or pastoral grounds is indulging in a little free exercise. Just because it's contemptible doesn't mean it isn't Constitutionally protected. Many reprehensible positions are upheld by the Bill of Rights.

You're misapplying the Constitution. Free exercise of religion does not excuse the Church from moral or ethical obligations. Catholic paedophiles should still go to prison. Anglican thiefs likewise. You're arguing that I can get away with anything, racial, sexual, sexual orientation discrimination, or rape and murder, just so long as I drape it under the cloak of "freedom of religion". Well, not on my planet. Actively firing a teacher for their religious convictions is a crime, and must be punished.

How is an atheist calling herself a bright going to end discrimination unless it is via obfuscation of reality? *waves hand. These aren't the atheists you're looking for. You can go about your bright business. Move along. Move along.

For the same reason that a homosexual calling herself "gay" ends discrimination. Or do you think that "gay" as a synonym of homosexual is an obfuscation of reality? Of course not. You immediately associate "gay" with "homosexual" and simultaneously with "cheery", giving gay rights a boost. Your consciousness has been raised. The only real difference between "gay" and "bright" is that you're not used to the use of "bright" in this context and your grammar alert has kicked in. But you'll get used to it in time, just like you got used to having black neighbours. After a while, the prejudice fades into the background, becoming faint and discoloured, as the vivid rainbow of equality comes to the fore. Just give it time.
Oh, and my lightsabre's bigger than yours.

 

[xouper]

Kimpatsu: For the same reason that a homosexual calling herself "gay" ends discrimination.

For someone who calls himself a "bright", you're not very bright.


Oh wait, mebbe you said that in jest.

 

[Kimpatsu]

For someone who calls himself a "bright", you're not very bright.

Brighter than you, who can't even spell "super" correctly.

Oh wait, mebbe you said that in jest.

Yes, compared to me, you're a clown.
Now, I'll rephrase: Calling homosexuals "gay" helps to end discrimination (by raising consciousness).
All clear now?

 

[viscousmemories]

I've been following this "Bright(tm)" craze for a few weeks now, and it still makes me sad to watch people fall into it. I grew up in a fundie cult. My siblings were all very resistant to it in the beginning, but one by one they were "bitten" (as we called it) and joined the club. That's exactly how I feel about this.

What makes me sad isn't that I think there's something inherently tragic about this "new word", it's just sad to watch people grabbing and clinging on to it like a life-preserver. As if having a naturalistic worldview has caused them to feel so alienated from the rest of society for so long, that they see the growing use of this new, joyful classification as vindication.

The day I heard about it I went to the "Brights(tm)" website and saw their endorsements page. I shot off e-mails to Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins and James Randi to ask if their name and reputation had been hijacked by the "Bright(tm)" founders or if they really supported this nonsense, and sadly each of them responded (Dawkins assistant on his behalf) acknowledging their devotion to this cause.

I think Dawkins himself made one of the better cases against this "new word" that I've yet heard, though he seems to have changed his mind:

Richard Dawkins: Perhaps the best of the available euphemisms for atheist is nontheist. It lacks the connotation of positive conviction that there is definitely no god, and it could therefore easily be embraced by Teapot or Tooth Fairy Agnostics. It is less familiar than atheist and lacks its phobic connotations. Yet, unlike a completely new coining, its meaning is clear. If we want a euphemism at all, nontheist is probably the best.

The alternative which I favor is to renounce all euphemisms and grasp the nettle of the word atheism itself, precisely because it is a taboo word carrying frissons of hysterical phobia. Critical mass may be harder to achieve than with some non-confrontational euphemism, but if we did achieve it with the dread word atheist, the political impact would be all the greater.

vm

 

[Kimpatsu]

When I was a kid in the '60s, before 'gay liberation' really caught on, the only person I ever heard using 'gay' in regular conversation (i.e. not Christmas songs) was my grandmother, and she used it as a synonym for 'pleasant'. 'Gay' was a word that had already fallen out of day-to-day use. The soon-to-be gay community jumped on a chance to appropriate a word that had fallen from use to their advantage. Nobody (I dare say) was confused by the new meaning of 'gay', particularly with all the media attention at the time. And, since it was nobody's loss (except my grandmother's), the new meaning was readily accepted by the public.

Where are you from? "Gay" as a synonym for homosexual replaced "gay" as a synonym for happy only gradually in England; there are still (comparatively young) people who feel the word has been "hijacked". (Dawkins is one of them.) It was most certainly still in day-to-day use, and so wasn't merely appropriated.

'Bright' is a whole different matter.

Not in the slightest.

It's not only a word in very common usage, it's 'overloaded' (to use a computer term) with several meanings. Dawkins and Randi and the others are attempting to force the entire English-speaking world to dump a perfectly good word because their small minority wants to appropriate it for their PR purposes! What arrogance! What folly!

Neither arrogance nor folly, but an important attempt at consciousness-raising. And why should any other meanings of "bright" be supplanted merely by widening the definition to include a new one? English abounds in homonyms, "light" and "sweet" among them.

Before someone brings up the "but we mean 'bright' as a noun" crap, just think about 'gay' again. It is a noun, yes, but it's also an adjective. If the 'brights' get together for a parade, it will be called a 'bright parade'. Dawkins is appropriating 'bright' as an adjective too.

Just as "gay" is. Still no problem here. I'm all for a bright parade.

And what word are we supposed to use as a substitute for 'bright' in the current sense? I'm sorry, but the Bright Star Atlas is not going to be renamed the Atlas of Stars of Higher Light Intensity Than Normal". Come on!

That's why it's a homonym; still no problem. No one will think the Bright Star Atlas is a catalogue of atheists' names and addresses, unless they're really dim. Oh, wait...

Every time Randi mis-uses the word 'bright', my esteem for him drops another notch. I sincerely hope that he's reading this.

He's not misusing it; he's using it in its new meaning. That's how language involves. I hope he's reading this, too: to see that some of us support him.

 

[BillyJoe]

Up to the age of about 15, I was an increasingly devout catholic, attending mass daily, saying my night prayers in front of an altar in my bedroom and dreaming of the day I would become a priest and spread the good word. Then everything changed. I had been mouthing the words of others and thinking their thoughts. Not a single thought or word was my own. Slowly I began to think about these things for myself. Eventually I was no longer a catholic, I was not even a christian, not even a theist. I ended up without any belief. It occurred to me that I did not even have to justify my non-belief. Non-belief was really nothing. It was merely the absence of belief. It was those who believed who needed to justify their belief. It was they who needed to snuggle together in organizations of like-minded persons to bolster the belief that they could not justify.

I have no need of an organization because I don't have any beliefs that need bolstering. I have no need of a name because there is nothing to name, no belief to give a name. I'm just BillyJoe, an individual who doesn't believe in anything for which there is no supporting evidence.