A tiny group of gallant men (and “their women”) go underground to fight the evil gynocratic overlords. Is this the plot of a terrible dystopian potboiler from 1971, or a description of how most MRAs see themselves, and the world, today?
Turns out it’s both. I found this pic in the Blue Pill subreddit, and now I really, really want to read this book.
Here’s a book review from someone who did.
I missed whatever that was about “brights” but it sounds pretty stupid. If you have to brag about intelligent you are, you probably aren’t all that intelligent.
Kitteh – yeah, the Dictionary Defense sounds like a Dawkins move.
I spend a bit of time over at FreeThoughtBlogs, home of PZ Myers, Ophelia Benson, et alia. Despite not actually being an atheist (yet), I have found it a very congenial place. The ongoing battle they wage against the forces of badminded nastiness is a big part of that. They don’t support smugma, either.
Oh and Katz, the indigo children crowd have already made up a next generation, crystal children. Soon enough we’ll have chaos emerald children and philosopher’s stone kids.
The Brights thing was, oh, about ten years ago, maybe a bit more. The idea was (purportedly) to come up with a term that was less confrontational (!) than atheist. Trouble was, of course, that it was trying to foist a word with no history of that use, but plenty of baggage (if you’re not bright, you’re dim). Saying it was supposed to be a noun instead of an adjective didn’t help at all. It was coined by Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell* and promoted by Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins, for a while, at least. It was a silly rebranding exercise, really.
*who may or may not be cats in a human suit
Robert, yeah, I hang out there a bit despite not being at all atheist. I tend to avoid the specifically religious topics. It’s just as well I can’t log in there, for some reason, because much as I like reading, I don’t think I’d be too comfortable taking part. As far as the science goes, I’m totally out of my depth!
The snark is the best thing, especially when Louis is on a roll. Must go with the name. 😀
Right, I mean the next next generation, the ones after the crystal children.
So PZ Myers seems like a really cool person, but FreeThoughtBlogs and “freethinkers?” Same problem yet again.
It goes indigo children, crystal children, star children, and then brights, because they have ascended physical matter and therefore gem structures and stellar formations. Then their kids realise their great, great grandparents were mostly people on the autistic spectrum whose parents refused to face it head on and help them adapt.
Isn’t this just all proof that if a particular positive word occurs in a name, it indicates the name thing isn’t? Like the amazing atheist isn’t amazing, the Brights people aren’t particularly bright, etc. If a group feels like they need to add a positive word to their brand, it explicitly indicates that their brand is not making that association for them. Is anyone here a marketer so they could get better where I’m trying to go with this?
I’m baffled as to how anyone could have thought that “the brights” would be a less confrontational term than “atheists”. “Atheist” is just a word that tells you that a person doesn’t believe in a deity – “brights” is way the hell into “fuck you, I’m the specialist snowflake of all” territory. It doesn’t even read as arrogant to me so much as insecure and childish.
@pallygirl
And Dear Leaders are usually terrible.
I’m not a marketer, but I get what you mean, pallygirl. It’s sort of like the NiceGuy phenomenon – if you have to go around telling people you’re a nice guy, you probably aren’t. (Had a moment like that on ER last night – Taglieri telling Hathaway “I’m a good guy”. Yeah, dude, she lived with you, either you’ve already demonstrated that or not; it’s also a pretty low bar for Reasons She Should Move Back In.)
If someone tried to describe themselves as “a bright” to me irl I’m pretty sure the resulting eye-rolling would give me a migraine.
Katz, the term freethinker has a respectable history. Although for me, it will always be associated with the Voice Farm song.
“People’s Republic”
Anyone who describes themselves as a bright has to obey the inverse square law. It is known.
What is its history? (I’m asking out of honest curiosity.)
It comes from the Enlightenment, I think.
I’d just love to say “a bright what?” if someone claimed to be one. Or maybe “I’m more a matte with subtle sateen hints, m’self.”
Yeah; so the “bright” thing was coined by that subset of atheists who:
-are white cishet men
-are disproportionately in control of mainstream atheist organizations
-receive disproportionate amounts of media attention when it comes to talking about atheists
-are generally hostile to feminism and any sort of intersectional analysis that doesn’t put white cishet men squarely at the center of it
-are also hostile to the mere idea that sociology and social sciences–the disciplines that have given us the best tools to understanding intersectional oppressions–are valid academic fields.
-overlap with MRAs quite a bit
-overlap with libertarians quite a bit
So, if you’re going to come up with a name that accurately and succinctly sums up the characteristics of this group of people, let me know, because the rest of us atheists would really like to put some distance between ourselves and them. It would be great if all y’all social justice-minded theists would, you know, NOT allow those bigoted assholes to claim all of atheism and associate the entire concept with pigheaded privileged bigotry. Just a thought.
The rest of FreeThoughtBlogs really runs the gamut, from even more awesome than PZ Myers when it comes to social justice to kinda “meh” on social justice (but generally great in some other area). A whole bunch of new bloggers have joined in the past couple years, there are many more bloggers of color there, more women, and the roster has gotten more international. If you haven’t checked it out in a few years then you should
“Freethought” is a historic term with a lot of actually really great baggage. I don’t understand the hate for “freethinkers.” It’s an honorable tradition.
The hostility towards atheists is one reason I don’t post here as much as I did when I first found this blog.
I would point out that I’m low voltage, but didn’t think I was illumination-grade, although my PN junction requires voltage in a specific electrical polarity.
“I’m reflective – if you say stupid things to me then I’ll reflect them right back at you. This is a defense mechanism that some creatures evolve over time as a way to ensure that they only have to hear stupid argument once.”
Freethought: http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Secular-Philosophies/Freethought-Revival.aspx
An interview with Susan Jacoby about her book on the subject. She’s an atheist who SHOULD be getting just as much public and media attention as Dawkins or any of his well-known brethren, if not more.
@Sally Strange:
I’m an atheist myself, but I don’t think it is reasonable to make that request of theists. I see atheists criticise christians and muslims for not speaking out against the more extreme variants of their beliefs. If that is a valid request to make of theists, then the equivalent applies to atheists. Otherwise it’s a different application of rules depending on group membership.
Part of the reason that Dawkins gets so much attention is that a smug middle aged white man with a posh British accent is pretty much exactly who people are most likely to accept being talked down to by.
::waves::
Hi Sally!
Urgh, gah, I hadn’t known that bit. My eyes are rolling really hard now. Should have bloody known.
Do the Slimepitters fancy themselves as Brights?
It’s not hostility to atheists, here. It’s hostility to people being asshats about it. I would think most Mammotheers are atheist or pretty close to it.
Was that a typo for atheists? Otherwise I can’t quite follow.