Would you support "Brights" if they re-branded?

Piggy

Unlicensed street skeptic
Piggy
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
15,905
One of the primary objections to "The Brights" as an organization for promoting rationalist issues is that the name provides ammo for non-rationalists to cast us as ivory-towered elitists.

Would you support the identical organization if it re-branded itself, much the way that Value Jet re-branded itself as AirTran after the Everglades crash and not only survived but successfully competed against now-bankrupt Delta Airlines?

I'll go ahead and cast my vote and say yes, I would. One of the reasons AFEC (American fundamentalist evangelical Christianity) has risen to power has been their willingness to organize. Of course, herding sheep is one thing, herding cats is another, so....
 
I think you should clarify 'support' - do you mean 'join'?

In any case, I would not join or otherwise support them, I think.



/Quit trying to organize my lack of religion.
 
aerocontrols said:
I think you should clarify 'support' - do you mean 'join'?
Click to expand...
Join, donate to, put a sticker on your car, identify yourself as, etc. Any of those would count as "support". I woudn't do any of those for the "Brights", even though I agree with their platform.
aerocontrols said:
Quit trying to organize my lack of religion.
Click to expand...
I'm not into forcing anyone to do anything, but I will staunchly defend my right to politically organize. Don't worry, no one's gonna come around and threaten to break your kneecaps.
 
Piggy said:
Join, donate to, put a sticker on your car, identify yourself as, etc. Any of those would count as "support". I woudn't do any of those for the "Brights", even though I agree with their platform.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I wouldn't do any of those things, either. As for agreeing with their platform, I really don't know what it is.

Piggy said:
I'm not into forcing anyone to do anything, but I will staunchly defend my right to politically organize. Don't worry, no one's gonna come around and threaten to break your kneecaps.
Click to expand...

I won't worry about my kneecaps, you don't worry about your 'right' to organize, and I won't worry about my right to express my opinion as to whether you (or the Brights) should organize.
 
I'm a member now.

The name - I think we could have done better, but I don't mind people misinterpreting the name - any condescension that is imagined is probably deserved.
 
"any condescension that is imagined is probably deserved."

That's a winning attitude :rolleyes:

Yes, of course I would self-identify if they came up with a better name. Let's also have some proposals. The potential terms out of the caucus from which "Bright" emerged weren't all that great from what I remember.

I think a word should just be made up. And it should have two syllables. And it should sound cool.
 
For the record, Valu-Jet merged with AirTran, a pre-existing discount carrier. Yes, they chose AirTran as the name of the surviving corporation in no small part because of the noteriety stemming from the flight 592 accident, but to say they merely rebranded is not strictly correct.

That said, the answer to the OP is "I don't know." I would consider it -- look over their stuff, see what they stand for, etc. I can't bring myself to do even that with a group with such a stupid name. It would be like giving serious consideration to joining a group called "We're smarter than you, na na na na na."
 
Er, we already (most of us) support the atheists / agnostic community. What was objected to what that this already-supported group name itself the "brights".
 
Changing the name of the group won't make much difference. They'll simply be known as the group that had the audacity to call themselves brights.

Now I ask you, how bright of them was that?:D
 
If it did as well as "gay" at be assimilated into speech, I would use it. Not necessarily as means of joining, but as a shorthand for an approximation of my beliefs. The word to me is only useful when the connotation is such that I can use it to remove a few hundred words from the answer to "Tell me about yourself?"

Some gays didn't like the brand name at the beginning, but you hear many less objections now that it doesn't have the happy connotation.

So whether the word is bright or dimwit, I will use it when it at least somewhat describes me. It doesn't yet, so I find it rather useless.

Walt

Edited to add: The word feminist is an example of one where I see some people, who I feel are feminists, avoiding the term because it got stuck with the wrong connotations due to somewhat loud and ... whats the word ... idiotic minority. I think bright could go either way.
 
Last edited:
Never been a fan of the term "Bright". Its better than "godless communist" though.
 
Cain said:
"any condescension that is imagined is probably deserved."

That's a winning attitude :rolleyes:

Yes, of course I would self-identify if they came up with a better name. Let's also have some proposals. The potential terms out of the caucus from which "Bright" emerged weren't all that great from what I remember.

I think a word should just be made up. And it should have two syllables. And it should sound cool.
Click to expand...
Damn, something I agree with Cain on.
 
Groucho had a great line but it escapes me at the moment and I'm too damn tired to google. I wouldn't join a group that would have me as a member... er something.

Will there be pie and punch at the meetings?

Vive la revolution...

Ok, sure.
 
RandFan said:
Damn, something I agree with Cain on.
Click to expand...

And with that we can say the universe is now going to collapse on itself any moment now. Arrgh, and we were so close!

Oh, and what about a symbol? I'm sure people are wary of emulating religion for obvious reasons, but it is a way of self-identifying.
 
Walter Wayne said:
If it did as well as "gay" at be assimilated into speech, I would use it. Not necessarily as means of joining, but as a shorthand for an approximation of my beliefs. The word to me is only useful when the connotation is such that I can use it to remove a few hundred words from the answer to "Tell me about yourself?"

Some gays didn't like the brand name at the beginning, but you hear many less objections now that it doesn't have the happy connotation.

So whether the word is bright or dimwit, I will use it when it at least somewhat describes me. It doesn't yet, so I find it rather useless.

Walt

Edited to add: The word feminist is an example of one where I see some people, who I feel are feminists, avoiding the term because it got stuck with the wrong connotations due to somewhat loud and ... whats the word ... idiotic minority. I think bright could go either way.
Click to expand...

I agree with this and the major problem at the moment for me is not the defintion they use i.e.:

http://www.the-brights.net/

What is a bright?
  • A bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview
  • A bright's worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements
  • The ethics and actions of a bright are based on a naturalistic worldview
Click to expand...


But the rest of the gubbins that goes alongside that.
 
Last edited:
I thought I was the only one who thought "Bright" was terrible moniker. Is it any wonder I love this board?

I came across someone online who mentioned that when asked about his life philosophy or religious affiliation, responds "I'm a skeptic."

Isn't that enough?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom