OK, what the heck. I'm sick, don't feel like working anymore tonight, and I have nothing to distract my mind from ruminations of cold weather (man, I shoulda bought an A/C), so I'll finally bloviate on my disdain for the term and movement called Bright.
First, and now for something completely different. Please read what the always illuminating Cecil Adams brings to bear on the word "gay.". To wit, and this is backed by outstanding digidictionaries (Liberal dictionary reader!), the term "gay" has since time immemorial (I don't remember the 1600s, do you?!) has meant licentious, wanton, given to or abounding in McDonald's McRib sam'miches. Ooh, sorry, I'm kinda hungry. Was given to mean, in the immortal words of MST3K, "dirtiful."
I bring this up because Richard Dawkins brings it up in his book The Greatest Show on Earth. First off, if you've haven't rushed out and bought it, WTF?! ("WTF" means "What The Fuck" ... Just, ah... FYI) It's a great book, really, as to be expected from the eminent Richard Dawkins. Honestly, if I had HALF the British accent he had... Ugh, got some brown paste of some sort on my nose. Sorry. Ah well, I'll just wipe that off here...
OK. In this context, Richard Dawkins has an opinion. But he falls into the common trap that homosexuals "appropriated" "gay" to mean homosexual, and it just ain't so. Gay has always implied "loose morals." It just came into force later on.
But what does "gay" "do" for non gays? (Man, I do love me me "quotes.") Gay also means "having or showing a merry mood," and "bright or showy." Sure, it's tough to use "gay" in a non-homosexual context nowadays. Tell yer same-sex friends you had a gay time last night and suddenly they sit at a different lunch table. But does a non gay (as in non-homosexual) person really hear the term and think, "Fuck that! I'm just as happy as the next guy! What do you mean calling yourself "gay?!"
I would say sometimes. Ya never know. But probably no, right? "Gay" has always led a, well, gay life, and has long since had a double entendre of a double meaning of a double life. In the 2009 Tacoma Tickle Fight, why, I was just as gay as the gay guy next to me!
Umm, you know what I mean.
Which brings us to Bright. As an American, some feelings:
1. Times have changed. Words in general are branded, and branded quickly. This group uses this word, "man, only WE can use that word!" Branding a word as your own makes a statement.
2. Again, "gay" has since time immemorial had multiple meanings. Not so for "bright." "Bright" has always had the meaning of "splendid" and so on, but also of "quick-witted" and "clever." (Sorry, no access to OED to verify dates.)
3. In modern America, I feel that labels count more than anything else. You're a Blue Stater, a Vegetarian, a Tree-hugger, a Christian, a partier, a pinochle player. Cripes, that right there is actually 0.00003 percent of the population...
Let's not lose track of our goal!
Point is, in modern America what you SAY you are means more than what you believe. You don't like baseball. You BELIEVE in the Cubs. You're a fan, right? Just....just play along. You're Christian. Doesn't matter what FAITH you believe in, you're religious, right? You're a Democrat. Doesn't matter what their POLICIES are, you just toe the line.
So now we come to Bright. The Bright website I have here says the following:
1. Brands (labels) mean a whole deal more now than ever.
2. "Bright" has a lot of positive connotations, and no other "double entendres," that "gay" has.
3. Labels count
What I'm saying is that "Bright" is a dangerous game. Brights posit themselves as:
"The generic noun form of bright is a tool to lay emphasis on the shared naturalistic worldview of a potentially large aggregate of persons. The term offers many individuals a means to step forward free of socially burdensome labels to speak more candidly and positively about their outlook." (taken from their website)
But I'm not seeing the correlation. Honesty, I still can't find WHY they chose the term "Brights."
And that's my point. To me, it seems haphazardly drawn. My apologies to any Bright.neters I'm offending, but I still have yet to see their rationale of WHY they chose "bright" from amongst the myriad of similar terms. They coulda been "Non-Believies," "De-instinctinators," or "Them." And in a dangerous American world (and honestly, with America so powerful, THEIR moral/religious demands mean more, and are more sinister, than any other country), to deign yourselves "Bright," with all of the connotations therein, seems more foolish than anything else.
And yet they'll rebuke. Looking at their website, and peradventure IndefatigaBill will find something I've missed, they connotate themselves (Kirk-ism, yes) with virtues true of free thinking. But they seem to miss the point that you can't say that your shit don't stink without the guy in the stall next to you coughing and pounding.
Gay has a history. Liberal, right wing, Mid-westerner, they have long-established meanings. There's no precedent for "Bright" in the context of free-thinking. Why should it start now? I mentioned before that were I to square off against someone who was gay, I would not stop to think, "Hey, I'm happy too! What right has he to use OUR term?!" Bright doesn't have that history. If I look at a religious believer and say, "I'm Bright, you're not," in MODERN thinking, what will that person think? Who cares what you WANT to say! In these times, it's what you SOUND LIKE you're saying.
And that's EXACTLY the point. "Free thinkers" tread dangerous waters. In a world where if you're not "9/11 was the worst American day ever" combined with "God wants 9/11 dead" (I'm not religious, so I'm just extrapolating here), saying, "I'm 'bright,' but you probably ain't" is just asking for trouble.
And what happens when fundamentalist religious folk decide to call themselves something besides "religious?" What happens when they start calling themselves "Patriots" or "True Americans" or "Moralists" or whatever? What happens when they come up with a name that irks or shames or scares the rest of the populace? What will we do when they then say, "Hey, it's just a name?"
I am atheist through and though. I hope I never change. But I'll never be "Bright" because I've already got a term for "Bright." It's called "Atheist." It's called "Free Thinking." It's called "Rationalist." I don't believe there is anything that can't ultimately be explained by science. I dunno how pants work, I think it has to do with a belt, but by fucking God, I'm sure someone smarter than me will solve it. Nuff said.
So, lemme recap. Bright=bad. Bright concept=good. Stop the labeling=good. Stick to atheism, or rationalist, or scientist.
Or whatever. In a world of labels, let's not brand ourselves Brights and have "them" say hey, they think they're smarter than us.
We are, but still...
First, and now for something completely different. Please read what the always illuminating Cecil Adams brings to bear on the word "gay.". To wit, and this is backed by outstanding digidictionaries (Liberal dictionary reader!), the term "gay" has since time immemorial (I don't remember the 1600s, do you?!) has meant licentious, wanton, given to or abounding in McDonald's McRib sam'miches. Ooh, sorry, I'm kinda hungry. Was given to mean, in the immortal words of MST3K, "dirtiful."
I bring this up because Richard Dawkins brings it up in his book The Greatest Show on Earth. First off, if you've haven't rushed out and bought it, WTF?! ("WTF" means "What The Fuck" ... Just, ah... FYI) It's a great book, really, as to be expected from the eminent Richard Dawkins. Honestly, if I had HALF the British accent he had... Ugh, got some brown paste of some sort on my nose. Sorry. Ah well, I'll just wipe that off here...
OK. In this context, Richard Dawkins has an opinion. But he falls into the common trap that homosexuals "appropriated" "gay" to mean homosexual, and it just ain't so. Gay has always implied "loose morals." It just came into force later on.
But what does "gay" "do" for non gays? (Man, I do love me me "quotes.") Gay also means "having or showing a merry mood," and "bright or showy." Sure, it's tough to use "gay" in a non-homosexual context nowadays. Tell yer same-sex friends you had a gay time last night and suddenly they sit at a different lunch table. But does a non gay (as in non-homosexual) person really hear the term and think, "Fuck that! I'm just as happy as the next guy! What do you mean calling yourself "gay?!"
I would say sometimes. Ya never know. But probably no, right? "Gay" has always led a, well, gay life, and has long since had a double entendre of a double meaning of a double life. In the 2009 Tacoma Tickle Fight, why, I was just as gay as the gay guy next to me!
Umm, you know what I mean.
Which brings us to Bright. As an American, some feelings:
1. Times have changed. Words in general are branded, and branded quickly. This group uses this word, "man, only WE can use that word!" Branding a word as your own makes a statement.
2. Again, "gay" has since time immemorial had multiple meanings. Not so for "bright." "Bright" has always had the meaning of "splendid" and so on, but also of "quick-witted" and "clever." (Sorry, no access to OED to verify dates.)
3. In modern America, I feel that labels count more than anything else. You're a Blue Stater, a Vegetarian, a Tree-hugger, a Christian, a partier, a pinochle player. Cripes, that right there is actually 0.00003 percent of the population...
Let's not lose track of our goal!
Point is, in modern America what you SAY you are means more than what you believe. You don't like baseball. You BELIEVE in the Cubs. You're a fan, right? Just....just play along. You're Christian. Doesn't matter what FAITH you believe in, you're religious, right? You're a Democrat. Doesn't matter what their POLICIES are, you just toe the line.
So now we come to Bright. The Bright website I have here says the following:
- 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
1. Brands (labels) mean a whole deal more now than ever.
2. "Bright" has a lot of positive connotations, and no other "double entendres," that "gay" has.
3. Labels count
What I'm saying is that "Bright" is a dangerous game. Brights posit themselves as:
"The generic noun form of bright is a tool to lay emphasis on the shared naturalistic worldview of a potentially large aggregate of persons. The term offers many individuals a means to step forward free of socially burdensome labels to speak more candidly and positively about their outlook." (taken from their website)
But I'm not seeing the correlation. Honesty, I still can't find WHY they chose the term "Brights."
And that's my point. To me, it seems haphazardly drawn. My apologies to any Bright.neters I'm offending, but I still have yet to see their rationale of WHY they chose "bright" from amongst the myriad of similar terms. They coulda been "Non-Believies," "De-instinctinators," or "Them." And in a dangerous American world (and honestly, with America so powerful, THEIR moral/religious demands mean more, and are more sinister, than any other country), to deign yourselves "Bright," with all of the connotations therein, seems more foolish than anything else.
And yet they'll rebuke. Looking at their website, and peradventure IndefatigaBill will find something I've missed, they connotate themselves (Kirk-ism, yes) with virtues true of free thinking. But they seem to miss the point that you can't say that your shit don't stink without the guy in the stall next to you coughing and pounding.
Gay has a history. Liberal, right wing, Mid-westerner, they have long-established meanings. There's no precedent for "Bright" in the context of free-thinking. Why should it start now? I mentioned before that were I to square off against someone who was gay, I would not stop to think, "Hey, I'm happy too! What right has he to use OUR term?!" Bright doesn't have that history. If I look at a religious believer and say, "I'm Bright, you're not," in MODERN thinking, what will that person think? Who cares what you WANT to say! In these times, it's what you SOUND LIKE you're saying.
And that's EXACTLY the point. "Free thinkers" tread dangerous waters. In a world where if you're not "9/11 was the worst American day ever" combined with "God wants 9/11 dead" (I'm not religious, so I'm just extrapolating here), saying, "I'm 'bright,' but you probably ain't" is just asking for trouble.
And what happens when fundamentalist religious folk decide to call themselves something besides "religious?" What happens when they start calling themselves "Patriots" or "True Americans" or "Moralists" or whatever? What happens when they come up with a name that irks or shames or scares the rest of the populace? What will we do when they then say, "Hey, it's just a name?"
I am atheist through and though. I hope I never change. But I'll never be "Bright" because I've already got a term for "Bright." It's called "Atheist." It's called "Free Thinking." It's called "Rationalist." I don't believe there is anything that can't ultimately be explained by science. I dunno how pants work, I think it has to do with a belt, but by fucking God, I'm sure someone smarter than me will solve it. Nuff said.
So, lemme recap. Bright=bad. Bright concept=good. Stop the labeling=good. Stick to atheism, or rationalist, or scientist.
Or whatever. In a world of labels, let's not brand ourselves Brights and have "them" say hey, they think they're smarter than us.
We are, but still...
