| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Carol Lee Smith" |
| Date: |
29 Aug 2003 01:21:28 AM |
| Object: |
Shermer on Sci.Fri. 8/29 |
TOTN Science Friday features Michael Shermer.
2:00 PM WHAD, 90.7 FM, Talk of the Nation Science Friday
Ever consulted a pet psychic? Swear you saw a UFO? Do you avoid
walking under ladders for fear of inviting bad luck? Why do we
believe in strange things? After two on Talk of the Nation Science
Friday, we'll take a look at science, pseudoscience and the nature of
scientific proof. Are we skeptical enough? Plus, this week Mars is
the closest it has been in 60,000 years. We'll talk with a planetary
geologist about the past climate on Mars and what the planet's close
proximity means for scientists.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
E-SKEPTIC: SHERMER SCIENCE FRIDAY/"BRIGHTS" OUT OF
CLOSET/"GAY" ORIGINS
E-SKEPTIC FOR AUGUST 28, 2003
Copyright 2003 Michael Shermer, Skeptics Society, Skeptic magazine,
e-Skeptic magazine (www.skeptic.com and skepticmag@aol.com). Permission to
print, distribute, and post with proper citation and acknowledgment. We
encourage you to broadcast e-Skeptic to new potential subscribers.
Newcomers can subscribe to e-Skeptic for free by sending an e-mail to:
------------------------
SHERMER ON NPR'S TALK OF THE NATION SCIENCE FRIDAY, 8/29, 12-1PM
Check local listings for your NPR affiliate station.
Topic: Why People Believe Weird Things
I will be discussing, among other things, why SMART people believe weird
things, the subject of the new chapter of the second edition of the book
(available on our web page at www.skeptic.com, PB60, $15.95 paperback).
The other guest with me will be Stuart Vyse, author of Believing in Magic:
The Psychology of Superstition, the best book I have come across on this
topic and available on our web page at www.skeptic.com (B58, $14.95
paperback). Stuart's book covers just about every psych study ever done on
superstitious beliefs and behavior. It's a great resource.
--------------------
"BRIGHTS" COME OUT OF THE CLOSET
As many of you are aware by now, there is a movement afoot to introduce a
new meme into our cultural lexicon to substitute for the melange of
descriptive words such as atheist, nontheist, agnostic, nonbeliever,
infidel, heretic, skeptic, humanist, secular humanist, free thinker, and
the like. The new meme was introduced at the Atheist Alliance
International conference last April in Florida, by Paul Geisert and Mynga
Futrell, from Sacramento, California.
Interestingly, this proposal followed my own lecture at the conference, in
which the promoter had encouraged me to address the "labeling" problem in
a slightly different context. (I did not know about the new meme about to
be introduced.) It seems that this promoter had received some flack from
some Atheist Alliance International organizers over whether or not I
should be allowed to speak because I wrote in How We Believe that as a
statement about the universe (there is a God or there is not a God) I am
an agnostic (in the sense Huxley meant the term when he coined it in 1869,
meaning that this is an insoluble question), and as a statement of
personal belief I am a nontheist. Since I did not strictly identify myself
as an "atheist," apparently some felt that my participation at the
conference was not welcome. Essentially, I explained what I meant by these
terms, that labels are arbitrary and loaded ("atheist" has all sorts of
pejorative baggage in our culture), and that in any case there are so few
of us in America who do not believe in God (between 5 and 10%) that to
squabble over which nonbelievers in God should be allowed in the club is
doing the same thing so many nonbelievers dislike about religion, along
the lines of the Baptists and Anabaptists quibbling (fighting, really, to
the point of splintering the church) over when baptism should be employed.
Paul and Mynga noted that, by analogy, homosexuals used to suffer a
similar labeling problem when they were called homos, queers, fruits,
fags, and fairies. Their solution was to change the label to a more
neutral term--gay. Over the past couple of decades, gays have won
significant liberties for themselves, starting with gay pride and gay
marches that have led to gay rights.
Analogously, instead of calling ourselves nonbelievers, nontheists,
atheists, agnostics, skeptics, free thinkers, humanists, and secular
humanists, it was suggested that we call ourselves Brights. We are the
Brights. I am a Bright. The evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, the
philosopher Daniel Dennett, and the magician and paranormal debunker James
Randi have all announced publicly that they are Brights. In fact, Dawkins,
Randi, and I were the first to sign up on the spot at the conference.
However, just as there is no one gay organization, the Brights Movement is
not an organization; it is a constituency which, if it grows large enough,
may one day influence society in a positive direction of increasing
tolerance and liberty for both Brights and non-Brights. (For more
information go to www.the-brights.net or write Paul Geisert and Mynga
Futrell at P.O. Box 163418, Sacramento, CA 95816, e-mail:
TheBrightsNet@aol.com)
What is a Bright? At the Brights web page it is explained: "A Bright is a
person whose worldview is naturalistic--free of supernatural and mystical
elements. Brights base their ethics and actions on a naturalistic
worldview."
Bright is a good word. It means "cheerful and lively," "showing an ability
to think, learn, or respond quickly," and "reflecting or giving off strong
light." Brights are cheerful thinkers who reflect the light of science,
reason, and tolerance for all, both Brights and non-Brights. I believe
that the long-term future of humanity rests in the hands of those who
embrace a naturalistic worldview and a secular society (regardless of what
personal religious beliefs are embraced by individuals within the
society). Our future is bright.
I have a more formal and literary statement on this subject, that closes
the final chapter of my next book (The Science of Good and Evil, released
next February from Henry Holt/Times Books) and goes into more detail, but
for now I am officially out of the "other closet" in print.
----------------------------
ORIGIN OF "GAY" MEME
Ever since the "Bright" meme was introduced, with the "gay" analogy, I
have wondered about the actual origin of the usage of word. Was this a
top-down organizational strategy or was it a bottom-up emergent property
of social self-organization? The following explanation comes from a
correspondent, Rik Isensee (rikisensee@yahoo.com). Thanks Rik.
Following up on your question about "gay" origins and usage:
I ran across this fascinating description of how the word gay made its way
from a form of insider code to identity:
In George Chauncy's "Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture and the Making
of the Gay Male World 1890-1940," he sets out the history of the word
"gay":
"Originally referring simply to things pleasurable, by the seventeenth
century gay had come to refer to more specifically to a life of immoral
pleasures and dissipation (and by the nineteenth century to prostitution,
when applied to women), a meaning that the 'faggots' [a term used by gay
people to refer to themselves at the turn of the century] could easily
have drawn on to refer to the homosexual life.
"Gay also referred to something brightly colored or someone showily
dressed -- and thus could easily be used to describe the flamboyant
costumes adopted by many fairies [another term used by gay people to refer
to themselves at the turn of the century], as well as things at once
brilliant and specious, the epitome of camp." Chauncy, "Gay New York" p.
17.
"Over time, however, the word "gay" moved out of the slang of the
effeminate gay men (the self-described fairies, faggots and pansies) and
was used more and more as a code word by the non-effeminate gay men (the
self-described "queers"). As one gay writer explained in 1941:
"Supposing one met a stranger on a train from Boston to New York and
wanted to find out if he was 'wise' or even homosexual. One might ask:
'are there any gay spots in Boston?' And by slight accent put on the word
'gay' the stranger, if wise, would understand that homosexual resorts were
meant. The uninitiated stranger would never suspect, inasmuch as 'gay' is
also a perfectly normal and natural word to apply to places where one has
a good time.... The continued use of such double entendre terms will make
it obvious to the initiated that he is speaking with another person
acquainted with the homosexual argot." Chauncy, p. 18.
Having moved from being part of the "fairy" slang to a "queer" code
word, the meaning of the word gay changed again. Gay became not only an
adjective but also a noun -- and a new way to identity oneself.
"While such men spoke of 'gay bars' more than of 'gay people' in the
1920's and 1930's, the late 1930's and especially World War II marked a
turning point in its usage and in their culture. Before the war, many men
had been content to call themselves 'queer' because they regarded
themselves as self-evidently different from the men they usually called
'normal.' Some of them were unhappy with this state of affairs, but
others saw themselves as 'special' -- more sophisticated, more knowing --
and took pleasure in being different from the mass.
"The term gay began to catch on in the 1930's, and its primacy was
consolidated during the war. By the late 1940's, younger gay men were
chastising older men who still used queer, which the younger men now
regarded as demeaning. As [one man], who came out into the gay world of
Times Square in the 1930's, noted in his diary in 1951, 'The word "queer"
is becoming [or coming to be regarded as] more and more derogatory and
[is] less and less used by hustlers and trade and the homosexual,
especially the younger ones, and the term "gay" [is] taking its place. I
loathe the word, and stick to "queer", but am constantly being reproved,
especially in so denominating myself."
"Younger men rejected queer as a pejorative name that others had given
them, which highlighted their difference from other men. Even though many
'queers' had also rejected the effeminacy of the fairies, younger men were
well aware that in the eyes of straight men their 'queerness' hinged on
their supposed gender deviance. In the 1930's and 1940's, a series of
press campaigns claiming that murderous 'sex deviates' threatened the
nation's women and children gave 'queerness' an even more sinister and
undesirable set of connotations. In calling themselves gay, a new
generation of men insisted on the right to name themselves, to claim their
new status as men, and to reject the 'effeminate' styles of the older
generation. Some men, especially older ones, continued to prefer queer to
gay, in part because of gay's initial association with the fairies.
Younger men found it easier to forget the origins of gay in the campy
banter of the very queens whom they wished to reject." Chauncy, p. 19.
I also found a reference to the French gaie, (or Old French gai) referring
to homosexual men in the 16th century--which makes one wonder whether gay
meant light-hearted and fun because so many homosexuals were gay, or gay
men were called "gay" because they were light-hearted and fun? (Do we call
ducks, "ducks," because ducks duck, or do we call ducking "ducking"
because ducks duck?)
This may have been more than you wanted to know about origins--but I think
it does speak to the point that the word gay has a very long history.
It had some aspects of in-group code, especially for more flamboyant
homosexuals, but then was claimed by most gays as preferable to the more
sinister 'queer.' This history is all the more ironic, given that
nowadays, many younger men identify as "queer," claiming it's more
inclusive, whereas now it's the older men who object to its derogatory
history! (Some of whom may be the very same men, who, when they were
younger, claimed "gay" as their own, in contrast to "queer.")
But the queer controversy speaks a bit to what you're trying to do--it was
a conscious effort by a small group (Queer Nation, in the early 90s) who
decided to reclaim the expletive as a word that could include all of the
lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender/intersex/leather-s/m and questioning
community. It's caught on a bit, especially amongst more activist and
artistic communities; whether it will catch on generally will be
interesting to see. (Don't expect to see queer replace gay in the New York
Times just yet--since it took them 30 years to use gay instead of
homosexual!).
As for bright as an all-inclusive term for the non-religious --when I ran
across the bright website, my initial reaction was that it was needlessly
alienating, implying that people of faith aren't very bright? It's also
the top-down sort of attempt at influencing language that I suspect won't
go very far in terms of general usage (although it has a far better chance
than eupraxsophy ('good practice of wisdom'), the rather academic
neologism that Paul Kurtz (Center for Free Inquiry) advocates).
I recently heard a linguist named Allan A. Metcalf discuss his book,
Predicting New Words, on NPR. He describes how language evolves, and
provided a number of criteria for a new word, phrase, or usage catching
on, which might be helpful in deciding on your next steps!
From Houghton-Mifflin's promo:
"Why are some new words adopted while others are ignored? Allan Metcalf
explores this question in his fascinating survey of new-word creation in
English. By examining past new-word contenders, Metcalf discerns lessons
for linguistic longevity. For instance, he shows us why the humorist
Gelett Burgess gave us the words blurb and bromide but failed to win
anyone over with bleesh and diabob. Metcalf examines words invented for
political and social reasons (African American, pro-life), words coined in
books (edge city, the Peter principle), brand names and the words derived
from them (aspirin, Ping-Pong), and words that started as jokes (big bang,
couch potato).
"On the basis of this research, he develops a scale -- the FUDGE scale --
for predicting the success of newly coined words. The FUDGE scale has five
factors: Frequency of use, Unobtrusiveness, Diversity of users and
situations, Generation of other forms and meanings, and Endurance of the
concept. By judging how an emerging new word rates for each FUDGE factor,
Metcalf is able to predict which words will take root in the English
lexicon and which words will dry up and blow away. In this highly original
work, Metcalf shows us how to spin syllabic straw into linguistic gold."
I myself prefer "free thinker"--it has a history, and it seems more
inclusive, since it originally included some religiously-inclined, but
independent-minded folks as well (such as Quakers and Unitarians). It was
also considered pejorative and subversive, and many free thinkers have
claimed it as a positive identity. Anyways, I certainly support the
efforts of non-believers (whatever we call ourselves!) to support the
separation of church and state--organizations such as Americans United for
Separation of Church and State, your own magazine Skeptic; Free Inquiry,
Skeptical Inquiry, American Humanist, and American Atheist are all doing
their parts! It's an interesting question whether a common term will
enable us to represent our interests better, but I suspect organizing
non-theists is a bit like the proverbial herding of cats!
Rik
---
If this message was forwarded from a friend and you'd like to join
the distribution list (it's FREE), e-mail
.
|
|
| User: "Kronk" |
|
| Title: Re: Shermer on Sci.Fri. 8/29 |
29 Aug 2003 03:43:55 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 01:21:28 -0500, Carol Lee Smith
<human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
--------------------
"BRIGHTS" COME OUT OF THE CLOSET
As many of you are aware by now, there is a movement afoot to introduce a
new meme into our cultural lexicon to substitute for the melange of
descriptive words such as atheist, nontheist, agnostic, nonbeliever,
infidel, heretic, skeptic, humanist, secular humanist, free thinker, and
the like. ... it was suggested that we call ourselves Brights. We are the
Brights. ...
Oh ick. While I agree it would be nice to have a term to describe
simply living in the real world without resorting to supernaturalism,
I find this candidate thoroughly repellant. If taken as meaning
"smart and quick" it's self-aggrandizing and disparaging of the
intelligence of supernaturalists--some of which are quite smart, even
if they do have some dumb beliefs. And bright as in "sunny and
cheerful" is sickly-sweet, and in my case would be a whopping lie.
And I definitely don't want to wear any capitalized label. I want a
simple, mundane, prosaic word that's just an adjective describing me,
not a proper noun which represents me as belonging to some group or
movement. I think for now I'll stick with non-supernaturalist, even
if it is long and clumsy.
Kronk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sean C" |
|
| Title: Re: Shermer on Sci.Fri. 8/29 |
29 Aug 2003 01:58:45 PM |
|
|
In article <3f4f01c7.56282369@news.gvtc.com>, Kronk <void@isp.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 01:21:28 -0500, Carol Lee Smith
<human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
--------------------
"BRIGHTS" COME OUT OF THE CLOSET
As many of you are aware by now, there is a movement afoot to introduce a
new meme into our cultural lexicon to substitute for the melange of
descriptive words such as atheist, nontheist, agnostic, nonbeliever,
infidel, heretic, skeptic, humanist, secular humanist, free thinker, and
the like. ... it was suggested that we call ourselves Brights. We are the
Brights. ...
Oh ick. While I agree it would be nice to have a term to describe
simply living in the real world without resorting to supernaturalism,
I find this candidate thoroughly repellant. If taken as meaning
"smart and quick" it's self-aggrandizing and disparaging of the
intelligence of supernaturalists--some of which are quite smart, even
if they do have some dumb beliefs. And bright as in "sunny and
cheerful" is sickly-sweet, and in my case would be a whopping lie.
And I definitely don't want to wear any capitalized label. I want a
simple, mundane, prosaic word that's just an adjective describing me,
not a proper noun which represents me as belonging to some group or
movement. I think for now I'll stick with non-supernaturalist, even
if it is long and clumsy.
Kronk
I have to agree I absolutely loathe this term. I think it was invented
by Richard Dawkins, and perhaps doesn't sound as cloying and annoying
to British ears as to American. The term sounds arrogant, offensive and
rather childish to me. I can just hear O'Reilly and Limbaugh having a
field day with this term already: "the latest word from the liberal
elitists to show how much smarter they are than you, our faithful
listerners, is 'Bright.' Well folks, how much more conceited and
arrogant can you get than running around calling yourself a 'Bright?'
A descriptive label that's a little more neutral, a little more
accurate, and doesn't make us all look like part of some collective
would be much better.
Sean C
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Shermer on Sci.Fri. 8/29 |
30 Aug 2003 04:01:36 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 14:58:45 -0400, Sean C wrote:
In article <3f4f01c7.56282369@news.gvtc.com>, Kronk <void@isp.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 01:21:28 -0500, Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu>
wrote:
--------------------
"BRIGHTS" COME OUT OF THE CLOSET
As many of you are aware by now, there is a movement afoot to
introduce a new meme into our cultural lexicon to substitute for the
melange of descriptive words such as atheist, nontheist, agnostic,
nonbeliever, infidel, heretic, skeptic, humanist, secular humanist,
free thinker, and the like. ... it was suggested that we call
ourselves Brights. We are the Brights. ...
Oh ick. While I agree it would be nice to have a term to describe
simply living in the real world without resorting to supernaturalism, I
find this candidate thoroughly repellant. If taken as meaning "smart
and quick" it's self-aggrandizing and disparaging of the intelligence
of supernaturalists--some of which are quite smart, even if they do
have some dumb beliefs. And bright as in "sunny and cheerful" is
sickly-sweet, and in my case would be a whopping lie. And I definitely
don't want to wear any capitalized label. I want a simple, mundane,
prosaic word that's just an adjective describing me, not a proper noun
which represents me as belonging to some group or movement. I think
for now I'll stick with non-supernaturalist, even if it is long and
clumsy.
Kronk
I have to agree I absolutely loathe this term. I think it was invented
by Richard Dawkins, and perhaps doesn't sound as cloying and annoying to
British ears as to American. The term sounds arrogant, offensive and
rather childish to me. I can just hear O'Reilly and Limbaugh having a
field day with this term already: "the latest word from the liberal
elitists to show how much smarter they are than you, our faithful
listerners, is 'Bright.' Well folks, how much more conceited and
arrogant can you get than running around calling yourself a 'Bright?' A
descriptive label that's a little more neutral, a little more accurate,
and doesn't make us all look like part of some collective would be much
better.
Fortunately, it wasn't invented by Dawkins. From the Shermer article:
"The new meme was introduced at the Atheist Alliance International
conference last April in Florida, by Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell, from
Sacramento, California."
It came from California.
Which shouldn't surprise...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eldon Goopnik" |
|
| Title: Re: Shermer on Sci.Fri. 8/29 |
01 Sep 2003 12:13:45 PM |
|
|
"Brights" reminds me of a similar "icky" term used by fundamentalist women to
describe their church group. Sorry I can't think of the exact name at the
moment.
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 16:01:36 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 14:58:45 -0400, Sean C wrote:
In article <3f4f01c7.56282369@news.gvtc.com>, Kronk <void@isp.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 01:21:28 -0500, Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu>
wrote:
--------------------
"BRIGHTS" COME OUT OF THE CLOSET
ourselves Brights. We are the Brights. ...
Oh ick.
Kronk
I have to agree I absolutely loathe this term. I think it was invented
Fortunately, it wasn't invented by Dawkins. From the Shermer article:
"The new meme was introduced at the Atheist Alliance International
conference last April in Florida, by Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell, from
Sacramento, California."
It came from California.
Which shouldn't surprise...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Shermer on Sci.Fri. 8/29 |
30 Aug 2003 06:11:45 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003, Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
"BRIGHTS" COME OUT OF THE CLOSET
As many of you are aware by now, there is a movement afoot to
introduce a new meme into our cultural lexicon to substitute for the
melange of descriptive words such as atheist, nontheist, agnostic,
nonbeliever, infidel, heretic, skeptic, humanist, secular humanist,
free thinker, and the like. ... it was suggested that we call
ourselves Brights. We are the Brights. ...
. . . I think it was invented
by Richard Dawkins, and perhaps doesn't sound as cloying and annoying to
British ears as to American. . . .
Fortunately, it wasn't invented by Dawkins. From the Shermer article:
Correct. However, other ideas which are Dawkins' are equally loathsome to
many people. I like his piece about "the elephant in the room."
"The new meme was introduced at the Atheist Alliance International
conference last April in Florida, by Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell, from
Sacramento, California."
It came from California.
Which shouldn't surprise...
So does wine and many other things. So?
That information is no secret. It is very easy to find in many places,
including the web site www.the-brights.com
There are now Brights all over the world thanks to Dawkins, Dennett,
Randi, Shermer and others.
Even our discussion and your dissing of the term spreads the meme.
Thanks so much.
Carol
a Bright, in WI
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Shermer on Sci.Fri. 8/29 |
30 Aug 2003 06:24:33 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 18:11:45 -0500, Carol Lee Smith wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003, Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
"BRIGHTS" COME OUT OF THE CLOSET
As many of you are aware by now, there is a movement afoot to
introduce a new meme into our cultural lexicon to substitute for the
melange of descriptive words such as atheist, nontheist, agnostic,
nonbeliever, infidel, heretic, skeptic, humanist, secular humanist,
free thinker, and the like. ... it was suggested that we call
ourselves Brights. We are the Brights. ...
. . . I think it was invented
by Richard Dawkins, and perhaps doesn't sound as cloying and annoying
to British ears as to American. . . .
Fortunately, it wasn't invented by Dawkins. From the Shermer article:
Correct. However, other ideas which are Dawkins' are equally loathsome to
many people. I like his piece about "the elephant in the room."
"The new meme was introduced at the Atheist Alliance International
conference last April in Florida, by Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell,
from Sacramento, California."
It came from California.
Which shouldn't surprise...
So does wine and many other things. So?
That information is no secret. It is very easy to find in many places,
including the web site www.the-brights.com
There are now Brights all over the world thanks to Dawkins, Dennett,
Randi, Shermer and others.
Even our discussion and your dissing of the term spreads the meme.
Thanks so much.
Ooooookay.
Apparently the long posts I made on the matter aren't worth responding to...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Shermer on Sci.Fri. 8/29 |
29 Aug 2003 08:07:39 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 08:43:55 +0000, Kronk wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 01:21:28 -0500, Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu>
wrote:
--------------------
"BRIGHTS" COME OUT OF THE CLOSET
As many of you are aware by now, there is a movement afoot to introduce a
new meme into our cultural lexicon to substitute for the melange of
descriptive words such as atheist, nontheist, agnostic, nonbeliever,
infidel, heretic, skeptic, humanist, secular humanist, free thinker, and
the like. ... it was suggested that we call ourselves Brights. We are the
Brights. ...
Oh ick. While I agree it would be nice to have a term to describe simply
living in the real world without resorting to supernaturalism, I find this
candidate thoroughly repellant. If taken as meaning "smart and quick"
it's self-aggrandizing and disparaging of the intelligence of
supernaturalists--some of which are quite smart, even if they do have some
dumb beliefs. And bright as in "sunny and cheerful" is sickly-sweet, and
in my case would be a whopping lie. And I definitely don't want to wear
any capitalized label. I want a simple, mundane, prosaic word that's just
an adjective describing me, not a proper noun which represents me as
belonging to some group or movement. I think for now I'll stick with
non-supernaturalist, even if it is long and clumsy.
I agree, it's arrogant and vile. I'm not going to go about telling people
"I'm a bright!" It even sounds childish when you say it...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Shermer on Sci.Fri. 8/29 |
29 Aug 2003 01:55:48 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
I think for now I'll stick with
non-supernaturalist, even if it is long and clumsy.
I agree, it's arrogant and vile. I'm not going to go about telling people
"I'm a bright!" It even sounds childish when you say it...
It's all in the perception.
I don't think it is childish when it is said by Randi, Shermer, Dawkins,
Dennett or by anyone else who wishes to endorse a new umbrella description
for people with a naturalist POV.
Carol
a Bright, in WI
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Shermer on Sci.Fri. 8/29 |
29 Aug 2003 06:14:30 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 13:55:48 -0500, Carol Lee Smith wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
I think for now I'll stick with
non-supernaturalist, even if it is long and clumsy.
I agree, it's arrogant and vile. I'm not going to go about telling
people "I'm a bright!" It even sounds childish when you say it...
It's all in the perception.
I don't think it is childish when it is said by Randi, Shermer, Dawkins,
Dennett or by anyone else who wishes to endorse a new umbrella description
for people with a naturalist POV.
Sorry but it just doesn't fly with me...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Shermer on Sci.Fri. 8/29 |
29 Aug 2003 01:21:18 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Kronk wrote:
I think for now I'll stick with non-supernaturalist, even
if it is long and clumsy.
I do believe that you should do just that.
Each of us should be allowed the privilege of describing what we believe
ourselves to be.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
www.the-brights.com
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/NEWS/indexAlabama.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Shermer on Sci.Fri. 8/29 |
29 Aug 2003 01:53:21 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 01:21:28 -0500, Carol Lee Smith wrote:
No, she didn't "write" it.
What appears below is a direct quote from Michael Shermer's newsletter:
As many of you are aware by now, there is a movement afoot to introduce a
new meme into our cultural lexicon to substitute for the melange of
descriptive words such as atheist, nontheist, agnostic, nonbeliever,
infidel, heretic, skeptic, humanist, secular humanist, free thinker, and
the like. The new meme was introduced at the Atheist Alliance
International conference last April in Florida, by Paul Geisert and Mynga
Futrell, from Sacramento, California.
And it's STUPID.
There is certainly a lively debate going on about it. That is great. It
is putting the idea out there for people to consider. It is allowing the
meme to spread.
I'm an atheist. An atheist I'll stay.
I am an atheist. I will stay an atheist unless/until evidence is
presented to persuade me otherwise.
Talk about some people desperately needing an ego boost.
I don't agree that anyone is looking for a boosted ego.
Sheesh.
Sheesh? Now that is certainly a lucid argument.
Carol
a Bright, in WI
.
|
|
|
| User: "bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Shermer on Sci.Fri. 8/29 |
29 Aug 2003 05:27:53 PM |
|
|
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1030829135024.11807H-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 01:21:28 -0500, Carol Lee Smith wrote:
No, she didn't "write" it.
What appears below is a direct quote from Michael Shermer's newsletter:
As many of you are aware by now, there is a movement afoot to
introduce a
new meme into our cultural lexicon to substitute for the melange of
descriptive words such as atheist, nontheist, agnostic, nonbeliever,
infidel, heretic, skeptic, humanist, secular humanist, free thinker,
and
the like. The new meme was introduced at the Atheist Alliance
International conference last April in Florida, by Paul Geisert and
Mynga
Futrell, from Sacramento, California.
And it's STUPID.
There is certainly a lively debate going on about it. That is great. It
is putting the idea out there for people to consider. It is allowing the
meme to spread.
I'm an atheist. An atheist I'll stay.
I am an atheist. I will stay an atheist unless/until evidence is
presented to persuade me otherwise.
Talk about some people desperately needing an ego boost.
I don't agree that anyone is looking for a boosted ego.
Sheesh.
Sheesh? Now that is certainly a lucid argument.
Pay no attention to this dingbat bilbo - she is
only trying to out-atheist you :) - sheesh is
definitely applicative here. :) bob
Carol
a Bright, in WI
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Shermer on Sci.Fri. 8/29 |
29 Aug 2003 10:11:25 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
Come on. Calling ourselves "brights?"
Correction: You are not calling yourself a Bright, right?
It's like "we're smarter than you, nyah, nyah."
And when gays refer to themselves as gay, are they dissing straights
as morose?
I couldn't even say it without snickering...
Not a problem.
These aspects ARE addressed at www.the-brights.com if you even care to
check it out.
Just as Jeff has refused to read the Alabamakabala decision, are you
refusing to read the web site?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Shermer on Sci.Fri. 8/29 |
30 Aug 2003 10:10:07 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 22:11:25 -0500, Carol Lee Smith wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
Come on. Calling ourselves "brights?"
Correction: You are not calling yourself a Bright, right?
It's a general comment questioning anybody doing such. Not something that
has the force of law or anything yes? I mean, you can call yourself a
Kumquat if you like and there's nothing I can do about it.
It's like "we're smarter than you, nyah, nyah."
And when gays refer to themselves as gay, are they dissing straights as
morose?
No parallel I'm aware of. Are you saying gays "chose" the word? Words *do
emerge on their own without a little "campaign" behind them.
You also ignore that "gay" has, historically, been a *derogatory term.
Even before it was apply to directly to gays, it had connotations of being
frivolous, superficial, etc. And notice the pattern continues as "gay" is
being used in the colloquial to be similar in meaning to "lame." The very
*origin of the word in describing homosexuals is less than, well, nice.
For example:
"The most likely explanation is that it derives from gaycat or geycat, a
slang term for a tramp or hobo who is new to the road. Gaycats were
commonly in the company of older tramps, implying a homosexual
relationship. The term, according to Lighter, dates to at least the 1890s.
Gaycats were employed as lookouts while other hoboes committed crimes. The
OED2 cites the 1935 Underworld & Prison Slang by N. Ersine as defining
geycat as a homosexual boy. The origin of gaycat is unknown. Green,
however, says a gay cat was a tramp who offered sexual services to women.
"Another possible origin is the late nineteenth century slang usage of gay
to mean promiscuous. A gay house meant a brothel. This sexual sense of the
term could have become associated with homosexual promiscuity and the
heterosexual sense lost."
http://www.wordorigins.org/wordorg.htm
The undercurrent was "shallow, frivolous people with possible criminal
intent who screw everything that moves."
The word was only "hijacked" (IIRC Dawkins put it) in the sense of using a
derogatory term being applied to the group as a "code word" as you
couldn't, exactly go around saying "Hi! I'm a sodomite! Nice to meet you!"
I couldn't even say it without snickering...
Not a problem.
These aspects ARE addressed at www.the-brights.com if you even care to
check it out.
Just as Jeff has refused to read the Alabamakabala decision, are you
refusing to read the web site?
I've already read most of the articles that are linked there. I was
"there" (in the sense of reading the early articles) when this thing first
appeared.
And, here we go:
"I take special umbrage at your implication that brights have a superior
ethic, that you are 'the moral back bone of America,' because you 'don't
trust God to save humanity from its follies.'"
(Good's comment at: http://www.the-brights.com/dennett_good.htm)
That's exactly what I mean. It looks childishly arrogant. That *is how
it's going to be perceived. I expect it to backfire and pretty much end up
a failed experiment.
I'm sorry, I just think it's going to be perceived the way Good took it.
Anyway and finally...
One of the things about us all having different "terms" is that we don't
*agree on everything. There are reasons for, oh, there being separate
camps of atheists and agnostics. Even if (I think at least) the
differences are so slight as to be pretty much meaningless.
Still, that's humans.
Create a new "single" term, I'd put money on almost immediate splits
("atheist brights," "agnostic brights," "humanist brights," etc.).
I'm having a hard time seeing the *point...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Shermer on Sci.Fri. 8/29 |
30 Aug 2003 07:10:38 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003, Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 22:11:25 -0500, Carol Lee Smith wrote:
Correction: You are not calling yourself a Bright, right?
It's a general comment questioning anybody doing such. Not something that
has the force of law or anything yes? I mean, you can call yourself a
Kumquat if you like and there's nothing I can do about it.
Not to worry, I prefer papaya.
And when gays refer to themselves as gay, are they dissing straights as
morose?
No parallel I'm aware of. Are you saying gays "chose" the word? Words *do
emerge on their own without a little "campaign" behind them.
You also ignore that "gay" has, historically, been a *derogatory term.
Thank you for that. Yes. It was used in a derogatory way. Now it is
embraced. Our usage of words does evolve. That is what the
constituency of the Brights is doing. Using a word as a noun, rather than
an adjective.
Words "emerge" in different ways.
Even before it was apply to directly to gays, it had connotations of being
frivolous, superficial, etc.
Again, thanks for that.
And notice the pattern continues as "gay" is
being used in the colloquial to be similar in meaning to "lame." The very
*origin of the word in describing homosexuals is less than, well, nice.
And they have turned the tables and embraced the usage of the word "gay."
Interesting.
... The undercurrent was "shallow, frivolous people with possible
criminal intent who screw everything that moves."
The word was only "hijacked" (IIRC Dawkins put it) in the sense of using a
derogatory term being applied to the group as a "code word" as you
couldn't, exactly go around saying "Hi! I'm a sodomite! Nice to meet you!"
And now the Brights have a new code word.
I've already read most of the articles that are linked there. I was
"there" (in the sense of reading the early articles) when this thing first
appeared.
More recently an article of a friend has been added. Its assessment is
interesting as it addresses the term "black."
And, here we go:
"I take special umbrage at your implication that brights have a superior
ethic, that you are 'the moral back bone of America,' because you 'don't
trust God to save humanity from its follies.'"
(Good's comment at: http://www.the-brights.com/dennett_good.htm)
It is so cool that even comments of "anti-brights" are included, don't you
think? You should express yourself there.
That's exactly what I mean. It looks childishly arrogant. That *is how
it's going to be perceived. I expect it to backfire and pretty much end up
a failed experiment.
I find the whole experiment fascinating.
I'm sorry, I just think it's going to be perceived the way Good took it.
It very well may.
Anyway and finally...
One of the things about us all having different "terms" is that we don't
*agree on everything. There are reasons for, oh, there being separate
camps of atheists and agnostics. Even if (I think at least) the
differences are so slight as to be pretty much meaningless.
Some of us have a foot in both camps.
I embrace both designators.
Still, that's humans.
Yes.
Create a new "single" term, I'd put money on almost immediate splits
("atheist brights," "agnostic brights," "humanist brights," etc.).
I'm having a hard time seeing the *point...
Continued next week......................
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Shermer on Sci.Fri. 8/29 |
30 Aug 2003 10:05:53 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 19:10:38 -0500, Carol Lee Smith wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003, Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 22:11:25 -0500, Carol Lee Smith wrote:
Correction: You are not calling yourself a Bright, right?
It's a general comment questioning anybody doing such. Not something
that has the force of law or anything yes? I mean, you can call yourself
a Kumquat if you like and there's nothing I can do about it.
Not to worry, I prefer papaya.
And when gays refer to themselves as gay, are they dissing straights
as morose?
No parallel I'm aware of. Are you saying gays "chose" the word? Words
*do emerge on their own without a little "campaign" behind them.
You also ignore that "gay" has, historically, been a *derogatory term.
Thank you for that. Yes. It was used in a derogatory way. Now it is
embraced. Our usage of words does evolve. That is what the constituency
of the Brights is doing. Using a word as a noun, rather than an
adjective.
Words "emerge" in different ways.
Even before it was apply to directly to gays, it had connotations of
being frivolous, superficial, etc.
Again, thanks for that.
And notice the pattern continues as "gay" is being used in the
colloquial to be similar in meaning to "lame." The very *origin of the
word in describing homosexuals is less than, well, nice.
And they have turned the tables and embraced the usage of the word "gay."
Interesting.
Except they haven't. The term *still has derogatory connotations. I--who
am "gay"--only use it two ways: to identify the community (as it's entered
common usage and it's just easier to type three letters) and as an insult.
Yes, as an insult.
... The undercurrent was "shallow, frivolous people with possible
criminal intent who screw everything that moves."
The word was only "hijacked" (IIRC Dawkins put it) in the sense of using
a derogatory term being applied to the group as a "code word" as you
couldn't, exactly go around saying "Hi! I'm a sodomite! Nice to meet
you!"
And now the Brights have a new code word.
No, no parallel. "Code word" meaning that you could NOT identify
publicly as "homosexual." The word was meant as a, well, *code. Something
that was less risky to say where you might be overheard but which would be
understood by others in the subculture. Contrary to "bright," it was meant
to *obscure.
As in, for example, if you mistook the other person and they didn't give
you the expected responses when you threw "gay" in the conversation, you
could back out and deflect by using the other connotations (like "festive"
and all).
I rather doubt the people who are talking about the word "bright" are
meaning to obscure who they are in case somebody might be the crap out of
them or arrest them. I mean, they even got a website eh?
I've already read most of the articles that are linked there. I was
"there" (in the sense of reading the early articles) when this thing
first appeared.
More recently an article of a friend has been added. Its assessment is
interesting as it addresses the term "black."
And, here we go:
"I take special umbrage at your implication that brights have a superior
ethic, that you are 'the moral back bone of America,' because you 'don't
trust God to save humanity from its follies.'"
(Good's comment at: http://www.the-brights.com/dennett_good.htm)
It is so cool that even comments of "anti-brights" are included, don't you
think? You should express yourself there.
Actually, I'm far less interested in the "bright" thing than in the
misunderstanding of the word "gay."
That's exactly what I mean. It looks childishly arrogant. That *is how
it's going to be perceived. I expect it to backfire and pretty much end
up a failed experiment.
I find the whole experiment fascinating.
I'm sorry, I just think it's going to be perceived the way Good took it.
It very well may.
Anyway and finally...
One of the things about us all having different "terms" is that we don't
*agree on everything. There are reasons for, oh, there being separate
camps of atheists and agnostics. Even if (I think at least) the
differences are so slight as to be pretty much meaningless.
Some of us have a foot in both camps.
I embrace both designators.
Still, that's humans.
Yes.
Create a new "single" term, I'd put money on almost immediate splits
("atheist brights," "agnostic brights," "humanist brights," etc.).
I'm having a hard time seeing the *point...
Continued next week......................
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Shermer on Sci.Fri. 8/29 |
29 Aug 2003 10:52:05 PM |
|
|
i'm proud of you :) - i really am :)
even tho you are but jra#11 [Junior Rainbow atheist ]
cristened a mere few hours ago - ALREADY you are showing
a depth of analysis/thought in regards to this "Bright post" series
that is putting a glow on my face and a warmness in my heart.
The point about 'gays referring to themselves as gay' is devastating.
Bilbo's fearful refusal to visit the 'bright' web site - well noted .
Well done ! :) Another 'thundering' post from a searing intellect
poised on the leading edge :) jra's rool !
bob :)
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1030829220744.30509H-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
Come on. Calling ourselves "brights?"
Correction: You are not calling yourself a Bright, right?
It's like "we're smarter than you, nyah, nyah."
And when gays refer to themselves as gay, are they dissing straights
as morose?
I couldn't even say it without snickering...
Not a problem.
These aspects ARE addressed at www.the-brights.com if you even care to
check it out.
Just as Jeff has refused to read the Alabamakabala decision, are you
refusing to read the web site?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Shermer on Sci.Fri. 8/29 |
30 Aug 2003 07:12:38 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003, Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
... I've been reading the articles that have
been coming out (Dawkins, Shermer, et al).
I transcribed an NPR interview with Dennett and would be glad to send you
a copy if you want it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Shermer on Sci.Fri. 8/29 |
29 Aug 2003 10:55:03 PM |
|
|
p.s. we do need ,however, to talk about
"allowing the meme to spread" . bob
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1030829220744.30509H-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
Come on. Calling ourselves "brights?"
Correction: You are not calling yourself a Bright, right?
It's like "we're smarter than you, nyah, nyah."
And when gays refer to themselves as gay, are they dissing straights
as morose?
I couldn't even say it without snickering...
Not a problem.
These aspects ARE addressed at www.the-brights.com if you even care to
check it out.
Just as Jeff has refused to read the Alabamakabala decision, are you
refusing to read the web site?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Shermer on Sci.Fri. 8/29 |
29 Aug 2003 03:40:32 AM |
|
|
You are about as 'bright' as homosexuals are 'gay'. :) bob
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1030829011749.17875O-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
TOTN Science Friday features Michael Shermer.
2:00 PM WHAD, 90.7 FM, Talk of the Nation Science Friday
Ever consulted a pet psychic? Swear you saw a UFO? Do you avoid
walking under ladders for fear of inviting bad luck? Why do we
believe in strange things? After two on Talk of the Nation Science
Friday, we'll take a look at science, pseudoscience and the nature of
scientific proof. Are we skeptical enough? Plus, this week Mars is
the closest it has been in 60,000 years. We'll talk with a planetary
geologist about the past climate on Mars and what the planet's close
proximity means for scientists.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
E-SKEPTIC: SHERMER SCIENCE FRIDAY/"BRIGHTS" OUT OF
CLOSET/"GAY" ORIGINS
E-SKEPTIC FOR AUGUST 28, 2003
Copyright 2003 Michael Shermer, Skeptics Society, Skeptic magazine,
e-Skeptic magazine (www.skeptic.com and skepticmag@aol.com). Permission to
print, distribute, and post with proper citation and acknowledgment. We
encourage you to broadcast e-Skeptic to new potential subscribers.
Newcomers can subscribe to e-Skeptic for free by sending an e-mail to:
------------------------
SHERMER ON NPR'S TALK OF THE NATION SCIENCE FRIDAY, 8/29, 12-1PM
Check local listings for your NPR affiliate station.
Topic: Why People Believe Weird Things
I will be discussing, among other things, why SMART people believe weird
things, the subject of the new chapter of the second edition of the book
(available on our web page at www.skeptic.com, PB60, $15.95 paperback).
The other guest with me will be Stuart Vyse, author of Believing in Magic:
The Psychology of Superstition, the best book I have come across on this
topic and available on our web page at www.skeptic.com (B58, $14.95
paperback). Stuart's book covers just about every psych study ever done on
superstitious beliefs and behavior. It's a great resource.
--------------------
"BRIGHTS" COME OUT OF THE CLOSET
As many of you are aware by now, there is a movement afoot to introduce a
new meme into our cultural lexicon to substitute for the melange of
descriptive words such as atheist, nontheist, agnostic, nonbeliever,
infidel, heretic, skeptic, humanist, secular humanist, free thinker, and
the like. The new meme was introduced at the Atheist Alliance
International conference last April in Florida, by Paul Geisert and Mynga
Futrell, from Sacramento, California.
Interestingly, this proposal followed my own lecture at the conference, in
which the promoter had encouraged me to address the "labeling" problem in
a slightly different context. (I did not know about the new meme about to
be introduced.) It seems that this promoter had received some flack from
some Atheist Alliance International organizers over whether or not I
should be allowed to speak because I wrote in How We Believe that as a
statement about the universe (there is a God or there is not a God) I am
an agnostic (in the sense Huxley meant the term when he coined it in 1869,
meaning that this is an insoluble question), and as a statement of
personal belief I am a nontheist. Since I did not strictly identify myself
as an "atheist," apparently some felt that my participation at the
conference was not welcome. Essentially, I explained what I meant by these
terms, that labels are arbitrary and loaded ("atheist" has all sorts of
pejorative baggage in our culture), and that in any case there are so few
of us in America who do not believe in God (between 5 and 10%) that to
squabble over which nonbelievers in God should be allowed in the club is
doing the same thing so many nonbelievers dislike about religion, along
the lines of the Baptists and Anabaptists quibbling (fighting, really, to
the point of splintering the church) over when baptism should be employed.
Paul and Mynga noted that, by analogy, homosexuals used to suffer a
similar labeling problem when they were called homos, queers, fruits,
fags, and fairies. Their solution was to change the label to a more
neutral term--gay. Over the past couple of decades, gays have won
significant liberties for themselves, starting with gay pride and gay
marches that have led to gay rights.
Analogously, instead of calling ourselves nonbelievers, nontheists,
atheists, agnostics, skeptics, free thinkers, humanists, and secular
humanists, it was suggested that we call ourselves Brights. We are the
Brights. I am a Bright. The evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, the
philosopher Daniel Dennett, and the magician and paranormal debunker James
Randi have all announced publicly that they are Brights. In fact, Dawkins,
Randi, and I were the first to sign up on the spot at the conference.
However, just as there is no one gay organization, the Brights Movement is
not an organization; it is a constituency which, if it grows large enough,
may one day influence society in a positive direction of increasing
tolerance and liberty for both Brights and non-Brights. (For more
information go to www.the-brights.net or write Paul Geisert and Mynga
Futrell at P.O. Box 163418, Sacramento, CA 95816, e-mail:
TheBrightsNet@aol.com)
What is a Bright? At the Brights web page it is explained: "A Bright is a
person whose worldview is naturalistic--free of supernatural and mystical
elements. Brights base their ethics and actions on a naturalistic
worldview."
Bright is a good word. It means "cheerful and lively," "showing an ability
to think, learn, or respond quickly," and "reflecting or giving off strong
light." Brights are cheerful thinkers who reflect the light of science,
reason, and tolerance for all, both Brights and non-Brights. I believe
that the long-term future of humanity rests in the hands of those who
embrace a naturalistic worldview and a secular society (regardless of what
personal religious beliefs are embraced by individuals within the
society). Our future is bright.
I have a more formal and literary statement on this subject, that closes
the final chapter of my next book (The Science of Good and Evil, released
next February from Henry Holt/Times Books) and goes into more detail, but
for now I am officially out of the "other closet" in print.
----------------------------
ORIGIN OF "GAY" MEME
Ever since the "Bright" meme was introduced, with the "gay" analogy, I
have wondered about the actual origin of the usage of word. Was this a
top-down organizational strategy or was it a bottom-up emergent property
of social self-organization? The following explanation comes from a
correspondent, Rik Isensee (rikisensee@yahoo.com). Thanks Rik.
Following up on your question about "gay" origins and usage:
I ran across this fascinating description of how the word gay made its way
from a form of insider code to identity:
In George Chauncy's "Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture and the Making
of the Gay Male World 1890-1940," he sets out the history of the word
"gay":
"Originally referring simply to things pleasurable, by the seventeenth
century gay had come to refer to more specifically to a life of immoral
pleasures and dissipation (and by the nineteenth century to prostitution,
when applied to women), a meaning that the 'faggots' [a term used by gay
people to refer to themselves at the turn of the century] could easily
have drawn on to refer to the homosexual life.
"Gay also referred to something brightly colored or someone showily
dressed -- and thus could easily be used to describe the flamboyant
costumes adopted by many fairies [another term used by gay people to refer
to themselves at the turn of the century], as well as things at once
brilliant and specious, the epitome of camp." Chauncy, "Gay New York" p.
17.
"Over time, however, the word "gay" moved out of the slang of the
effeminate gay men (the self-described fairies, faggots and pansies) and
was used more and more as a code word by the non-effeminate gay men (the
self-described "queers"). As one gay writer explained in 1941:
"Supposing one met a stranger on a train from Boston to New York and
wanted to find out if he was 'wise' or even homosexual. One might ask:
'are there any gay spots in Boston?' And by slight accent put on the word
'gay' the stranger, if wise, would understand that homosexual resorts were
meant. The uninitiated stranger would never suspect, inasmuch as 'gay' is
also a perfectly normal and natural word to apply to places where one has
a good time.... The continued use of such double entendre terms will make
it obvious to the initiated that he is speaking with another person
acquainted with the homosexual argot." Chauncy, p. 18.
Having moved from being part of the "fairy" slang to a "queer" code
word, the meaning of the word gay changed again. Gay became not only an
adjective but also a noun -- and a new way to identity oneself.
"While such men spoke of 'gay bars' more than of 'gay people' in the
1920's and 1930's, the late 1930's and especially World War II marked a
turning point in its usage and in their culture. Before the war, many men
had been content to call themselves 'queer' because they regarded
themselves as self-evidently different from the men they usually called
'normal.' Some of them were unhappy with this state of affairs, but
others saw themselves as 'special' -- more sophisticated, more knowing --
and took pleasure in being different from the mass.
"The term gay began to catch on in the 1930's, and its primacy was
consolidated during the war. By the late 1940's, younger gay men were
chastising older men who still used queer, which the younger men now
regarded as demeaning. As [one man], who came out into the gay world of
Times Square in the 1930's, noted in his diary in 1951, 'The word "queer"
is becoming [or coming to be regarded as] more and more derogatory and
[is] less and less used by hustlers and trade and the homosexual,
especially the younger ones, and the term "gay" [is] taking its place. I
loathe the word, and stick to "queer", but am constantly being reproved,
especially in so denominating myself."
"Younger men rejected queer as a pejorative name that others had given
them, which highlighted their difference from other men. Even though many
'queers' had also rejected the effeminacy of the fairies, younger men were
well aware that in the eyes of straight men their 'queerness' hinged on
their supposed gender deviance. In the 1930's and 1940's, a series of
press campaigns claiming that murderous 'sex deviates' threatened the
nation's women and children gave 'queerness' an even more sinister and
undesirable set of connotations. In calling themselves gay, a new
generation of men insisted on the right to name themselves, to claim their
new status as men, and to reject the 'effeminate' styles of the older
generation. Some men, especially older ones, continued to prefer queer to
gay, in part because of gay's initial association with the fairies.
Younger men found it easier to forget the origins of gay in the campy
banter of the very queens whom they wished to reject." Chauncy, p. 19.
I also found a reference to the French gaie, (or Old French gai) referring
to homosexual men in the 16th century--which makes one wonder whether gay
meant light-hearted and fun because so many homosexuals were gay, or gay
men were called "gay" because they were light-hearted and fun? (Do we call
ducks, "ducks," because ducks duck, or do we call ducking "ducking"
because ducks duck?)
This may have been more than you wanted to know about origins--but I think
it does speak to the point that the word gay has a very long history.
It had some aspects of in-group code, especially for more flamboyant
homosexuals, but then was claimed by most gays as preferable to the more
sinister 'queer.' This history is all the more ironic, given that
nowadays, many younger men identify as "queer," claiming it's more
inclusive, whereas now it's the older men who object to its derogatory
history! (Some of whom may be the very same men, who, when they were
younger, claimed "gay" as their own, in contrast to "queer.")
But the queer controversy speaks a bit to what you're trying to do--it was
a conscious effort by a small group (Queer Nation, in the early 90s) who
decided to reclaim the expletive as a word that could include all of the
lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender/intersex/leather-s/m and questioning
community. It's caught on a bit, especially amongst more activist and
artistic communities; whether it will catch on generally will be
interesting to see. (Don't expect to see queer replace gay in the New York
Times just yet--since it took them 30 years to use gay instead of
homosexual!).
As for bright as an all-inclusive term for the non-religious --when I ran
across the bright website, my initial reaction was that it was needlessly
alienating, implying that people of faith aren't very bright? It's also
the top-down sort of attempt at influencing language that I suspect won't
go very far in terms of general usage (although it has a far better chance
than eupraxsophy ('good practice of wisdom'), the rather academic
neologism that Paul Kurtz (Center for Free Inquiry) advocates).
I recently heard a linguist named Allan A. Metcalf discuss his book,
Predicting New Words, on NPR. He describes how language evolves, and
provided a number of criteria for a new word, phrase, or usage catching
on, which might be helpful in deciding on your next steps!
From Houghton-Mifflin's promo:
"Why are some new words adopted while others are ignored? Allan Metcalf
explores this question in his fascinating survey of new-word creation in
English. By examining past new-word contenders, Metcalf discerns lessons
for linguistic longevity. For instance, he shows us why the humorist
Gelett Burgess gave us the words blurb and bromide but failed to win
anyone over with bleesh and diabob. Metcalf examines words invented for
political and social reasons (African American, pro-life), words coined in
books (edge city, the Peter principle), brand names and the words derived
from them (aspirin, Ping-Pong), and words that started as jokes (big bang,
couch potato).
"On the basis of this research, he develops a scale -- the FUDGE scale --
for predicting the success of newly coined words. The FUDGE scale has five
factors: Frequency of use, Unobtrusiveness, Diversity of users and
situations, Generation of other forms and meanings, and Endurance of the
concept. By judging how an emerging new word rates for each FUDGE factor,
Metcalf is able to predict which words will take root in the English
lexicon and which words will dry up and blow away. In this highly original
work, Metcalf shows us how to spin syllabic straw into linguistic gold."
I myself prefer "free thinker"--it has a history, and it seems more
inclusive, since it originally included some religiously-inclined, but
independent-minded folks as well (such as Quakers and Unitarians). It was
also considered pejorative and subversive, and many free thinkers have
claimed it as a positive identity. Anyways, I certainly support the
efforts of non-believers (whatever we call ourselves!) to support the
separation of church and state--organizations such as Americans United for
Separation of Church and State, your own magazine Skeptic; Free Inquiry,
Skeptical Inquiry, American Humanist, and American Atheist are all doing
their parts! It's an interesting question whether a common term will
enable us to represent our interests better, but I suspect organizing
non-theists is a bit like the proverbial herding of cats!
Rik
---
If this message was forwarded from a friend and you'd like to join
the distribution list (it's FREE), e-mail
.
|
|
|
| User: "bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Shermer on Sci.Fri. 8/29 |
29 Aug 2003 04:50:04 PM |
|
|
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1030829131446.11807C-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, bob wrote:
You are about as 'bright' as homosexuals are 'gay'. :) bob
Well to anyone who is reading impaired, no atheists or freethinkers have
claimed to be bright as a result of their support of the constituency of
the Brights.
There is a difference between being bright and being a Bright.
However , there is NO difference between being UNABLE to
comprehend the simple sentences that you posted in your own
post and being a dim bulb :)
From your first 'bright' post :) :
Bright is a good word. It means "cheerful and lively," "showing an ability
to think, learn, or respond quickly," and "reflecting or giving off strong
light."
You madame - are a 'junior rainbow atheist' of merit :) I hereby christen
thee jra # 11 doh!knight "comprehender of cataclysmic convolution."
Carol
a Bright, in WI
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
www://the-brights.com
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/NEWS/indexAlabama.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Shermer on Sci.Fri. 8/29 |
29 Aug 2003 09:50:52 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, bob wrote:
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, bob wrote:
You are about as 'bright' as homosexuals are 'gay'. :) bob
Well to anyone who is reading impaired, no atheists or freethinkers have
claimed to be bright as a result of their support of the constituency of
the Brights.
There is a difference between being bright and being a Bright.
However , there is NO difference between being UNABLE to
comprehend the simple sentences that you posted in your own
post and being a dim bulb :)
If you want to take issue with something Michael Shermer wrote, I suggest
you contact him. He is a very nice man and is quite accessible and
willing to consider criticism.
From your first 'bright' post :) :
Bright is a good word. It means "cheerful and lively," "showing an ability
to think, learn, or respond quickly," and "reflecting or giving off strong
light."
If you want to take issue with something Michael Shermer wrote, I suggest
you contact him. He is a very nice man and is quite accessible and
willing to consider criticism.
You madame - are a 'junior rainbow atheist' of merit :) I hereby christen
thee jra # 11 doh!knight "comprehender of cataclysmic convolution."
Yadda yadda yadda.
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/NEWS/indexAlabama.htm
"All religions are founded on the fear of the many and the cleverness of
the few." -- Marie Henri Beyle (Stendhal)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
MICHAEL SHERMER - Science and The Decline of Magic
Shermer's comment on creationism debate
Shermer on WI public radio--Happy Friday the Thirteenth
Michael Shermer's "Open letter to Messrs. Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens"
Michael Shermer...
A 'Must See' Michael Shermer video
Michael Shermer, rational atheist.
on Sat, 16 October TV: Shermer vs. Meyer
| indie sci-fi film "The Weapon"
Re: [sci fi, cab drivers mark sue joe chris orville redenbacher, strange flashbacks...bad craziness but i'm SOBER please DO read.. yes this means you!]
OT: Shameless self-promoting invitation to sci-fi/fantasy world
off topic for sci logic
Re:alt.atheism,sci.geo.petroleum,soc.culture.vietnamese,alt.autos.t-buckets,rec.music.makers.synth
Re: Sci-Fi Channel sets Summer premiere dates
Ongoing sporge attack on sci.med.cardiology
|
|
|
