Talk:Brights Movement

	This atheism related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

To be clear: they steal this word (brights) like homosexualist was steal the "gay" word (means happy)213.80.209.169 (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Would it be fair to say Dawkins was at one point enthusiastic, but has since calmed down a bit? Or is he still enthusiastic? --Kels 17:24, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

Well, that's what the Bright's website calls him.--Bob^{'s your uncle} 17:47, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, he's stuck with it because 1. he's famous, 2. he wrote about it, and 3. they are desperate for enthusiasts. Perhaps some commentary on his perspective over time could be in the "reception" section? human 18:40, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

bRIGHT

To cap or not to Cap, that is the question. At one of the sites linked, the "banner" uses a small "b". However, in text sections I see them cap it, as in, "are you bright? Then why not be a Bright?" human 17:26, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

Reception

"The brights movement has met with mixed responses, even from those who it would technically include. Many find the choice of the term to be embarrassingly condescending - perhaps useful as snark or psrodt, but not as a name for a broad based umbrella movement."

Comment: When someone says that the Dalai Lama is enlightened, no one is accused of arrogance. When Christians claim that "the autographs" authors were "illuminated", no one is being accused of arrogance. Let a bloc of people suggest that the universe was created just for the purpose of some specious 'test', and no one accuses them of being arrogant, yet let a group call itself "brights" (which effectively means the same thing as enlightened, illuminated) and suddenly non-believers are accused of being arrogant. This is an unjustified double standard. ^{— Unsigned, by: The dhampire logos / talk / contribs}

Mebee--PalMD^{-Did that sound a little harsh?} 23:41, 8 February 2008 (EST)

Sorry, I hate the term. It is arrogant and condescending. I would much rather call myself "liberated", or, heck with it "illuminated". Or, "brightly lit by natural light only". Or, "not stupid" - OK, that one is, again, condescending. I'd be happy being Queer and here, Black and proud, but "Bright" and semi-literate? It's just a bad choice of a word for a meme. Epic phail, as I understand hip 14 year olds would have referred to it about two years ago... human 00:29, 9 February 2008 (EST)

Because "Bright" is simply a repackaging of such labels as "freethinker" for aesthetic reasons, the primary consideration when examining the neologism is whether or not it is aesthetic. To many people, myself included, it seems an unreasonable name for a new intellectual tradition, since one of the hallmarks of such traditions should be an abandonment of the unjustified elitism of holy men. So yes, it is a double standard, but it is a reasonable and entirely pertinent one. Oh, and hello.--Agbdavis 23:41, 23 February 2008 (EST)

Hello. I agree (I think). I was always happy with "think for yourself", a/k/a "freethinker". "Brights", to me, is just embarrassing. human 23:49, 23 February 2008 (EST)

I dislike it too, but largely because I found it an almost comically desperate and artificial attempt at rebranding themselves. I find "freethinker" to be a gross overstatement of the mental abilities of certain members of the movement. (But that's probably because the only self-proclaimed freethinker I've interacted with has made the most stunningly unfreethinking things I've seen from an atheist.) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:23, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

I agree, RA, in that her usage of the term "freethinkers" utterly diminished it for me. I guess I will have to continue leaderless and label-less... ħuman 03:37, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

I know! We could call ourselves liberals! : ) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:41, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

BOOOO! I want my money back!^{— Unsigned, by: ‎213.80.209.169 / talk / contribs}

the complete opposite

"the complete opposite of what atheist has become in some parts of the world."

@Logos I am wary that this has the implication that atheists themselves are the opposite of bright. I updated this to "implies" with the intent to clarify that this is how they are perceived.

Maybe better wording would be "the complete opposite of how atheists are perceived in some parts of the world." Kauri0.o (talk) 22:49, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh I'm really sorry, I must be drunk (or new to wiki's.. haha) I rolled back myself. Kauri0.o (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)