December 01, 2004

• Is the phrase "linguistic hijacking" heterological?
• Bright makes me cringe. Nay, it makes me igry! What the hell was wrong with freethinker? Could Dawkins possibly have coined a less embarrassing, less self-congratulatory moniker?
• You can't use "freethinker" because that's my name. And though I try hard to be against the use of the word "gay" to describe things, the term "bright" just makes me want to scream the word . . . and then give it a blow job.
• "Freethinker" has the connotations of "libertine" or "hippie commune member" or communist of other sorts, at least in the US (i.e., 'Those damn freethinkers want to tell us it's okay to swing and swap wives...' er, well, bad example), which is probably why it's avoided. In fact, in the US South at least, most terms meaning "one who believes in reason rather than dogma" have been morphed into derogatives: liberal humanist 'enlightened' (always in quotes or fingerquotes) freethinker heterodox (okay, not sure about that one, but it's fun)
• I forwarded this to my father. I don't know if they're interested in families with only one kid left in the household, though. My sis is 16 and an atheist, and we are descended from a good long line of freethinkers. And the parents have been wanting a pool.
• The neologism (bright [n.]) has been serving as an effective mechanism for publicizing the existence of the constituency. Discussion regarding the term engenders awareness and leads to additional persons enrolling to be counted as constituents. OH FOR CRYING OUTLOUD. *vastly prefers Humanist*
• Speaking of linguistics, I found it interesting that her announcement used the phrase "without imposing religious beliefs" in regards to raising children. I would imagine that there are many Atheist parents who impose their (anti)religious beliefs on their children in much the same way this was meant when applied to non-atheist parents. After all, if you really belive something to be true, why wouldn't you teach it to your children?
• As an atheist parent, I'm going to try to provide a way of looking at the world that I would hope leads to atheism, but I'd never say "this is what you should or shouldn't believe." I think atheism comes from having an open perspective, contradictory as that may sound.
• I prefer "disinterested observer."
• Yeah, that's exactly it. I always say, "not being attached to ideas."
• "Bright" sucks, but at least it's not as offensive as some of the terms I'd prefer..."honest" or "logically consistent".
• ...or "not scared of an invisible wizard who will send you to invisible wizard land if you do what he says".
• I don't like any of these labels.
• Personally, I prefer Heldenpenis.
• Speaking of Mr Dawkins and religion, I would like you to direct your attention to this most excellent rant. exerpt: The problem with faith is that nobody's willing to simply have it, and let other people believe what they want; everybody wants to share their faith. It is considered perfectly okay for you to mock my perfectly rational ideas about evolution, but if I point out that your position depends upon the notion of a magic superhero in the sky, you'll probably take offense. Why? Why are irrational beliefs somehow less subject to scrutiny and dissection than rational ones? Why can't we simply point out in school that some people believe that God made the world in seven days, and that's fine, but there's no actual evidence to support that, other than some poorly translated writings that were cribbed from oral traditions that were already hundreds of years old before the first written copy of Genesis ever appeared? You tell 'em Josh!
• What has morality and goodness got to do with it? The Christian position, if I understand it correctly, is that non-believers are damned to hell. In that light, your conduct as an atheist is irrelevant, except to the extent that it encourages believers to abandon their faith. In fact, moral and upright atheists are most dangerous to Christians and are the most cunnin and deceptive tools of the devil. Someone correct me if I have this wrong.
• fes, i thought that read, "disinfected observer." now THAT'S a tag i could get behind.
• Tonight, on a very special episode of Monkeyfilter: "SideDish and Me: Infection-Free!"
• Dawkins didn't coin the term "Bright", a point of fact that both he and the people who did coin the term are quite clear upon. He has nothing to do with the movement, other than a) being one, and b) writing an article expressing approval of the attempt to unify non-supernatural world-views under one banner. The current meme (ho ho) from American politics of the "faith-based" versus "reality-based" communities is an equal, and quite possibly more effective, attempt to do the same thing. Ascribing the "Brights" movement to Dawkins is ignorant and lazy rhetoric. If it has any solid conceptual bases at all, the concept that figureheads should be unnecessary for an intellectually sound movement is surely one of them. I've seen the Brights ascribed to Dawkins in several places recently. It's wrong. Don't be stupid. Please. Also, Wife Swap is a show of the purest genius (well done RDF Media, you bastards), and you would have to be a cretin of the highest order to go on it.
• Well, whoever the fuck coined it, it remains loathesome and cloying.
• Oh, agreed, goetter. It's a pathetic, feeble neme. But, you know, it'd just be nice of people who post stuff had a fucking clue what they're talking about. (yesi'vehadalongdayandishouldjustshutupandstopbeingsocranky)
• Here are some wonderful science book dislaimers that I found through a link at q.queso.com.
• how could there possibly be a God who would allow the layout of that "brights" webpage to exist?
• flashboy: thanks for pointing out that I'm ignorant and stupid, as well as a user of the purest lazy and stupid rhetoric. Maybe the reason you keep seeing this lazy, stupid, ignorant, stupid error all over the place is that no one had heard of this before Dawkins started writing about it. Perhaps there's a better way to correct the error than insulting someone who makes it. Shitbreath.
• Calm down, jeez. Dare I ask how one achieves shitbreath?
• It seems flashboy was less interested in correcting the error, and more interested in exacting vengeance, hence the "(yesi'vehadalongdayandishouldjustshutupandstopbeingsocranky)" posted prior to disclaim his stance. How he reacts to an error is his perogative.
• Everyone has bad days, but that's no excuse for incivility. Or misuse of the word "rhetoric" in one's own rhetoric.
• I was running with scissors and I cut my rhetoric off.
• Say what you like about the Brights, but Dawkins is my god and I'll kill and / or invade anyone who disagrees with me...
• Perhaps there's a better way to correct the error than insulting someone who makes it. Well, yeeeees. I suppose there might be a point there. But, you know, that would have been sensible and reasonable and all those things. Really, sorry. It had, as I mentioned, been a long and ungood day. I was a camel's back, this post was a tiny, tiny straw. In the cold light of day, the whole 'Dawkins as totemic figure for the everything rational and scientific' thing still irritates, but roughly at the level of provoking mild tutting and slight head shaking. Didn't call for full on Wrath Mode. My apologies. I would like to point out, however, that my breath has a pleasing, delicate fragrance much akin to a spring meadow.
• ...or "not scared of an invisible wizard who will send you to invisible wizard land if you do what he says". Personally, I've always preferred the phrase "Invisible Sky Daddy" and "Eternal Torture Zone." Great mock religious band names: Invisible Sky Daddy ETZ JC and the Boyz Big Daddy, Junior, and the Spook
• "Paul Geisert, a Bright in Sacramento CA who first coined the noun, Bright. He is now Co-Director with Mynga. Mynga Futrell, a Bright in Sacramento CA who joined with Paul to design/implement strategy for a brights movement." I worked on a documentary about atheism with Paul's son, and met Paul and Mynga before he coined the term. Nice guy, dumb term.