| Deliberately made terms are always stupid and unfairly arbitrary in some way.
(I'm running w/ scissors.) Chloe - Tue 24 Jun, 13:38:40 |
| I can envision now the final battle between the brights and the enlightened, all pawns of course of the true masters, the illuminated. Heh.
Seriously, upon a second's glance or two at the site, I noticed it uses the term "naturalistic", which to me suggests "naturalist" which avoids a few of the problems that "Bright" has, while raising a few of it's own mostly around misunderstanding of usage ("So what do you have against technology?" "No no no, it's natural versus supernatural") Maybe tack a neo- onto it or something. Ben - Tue 24 Jun, 18:28:32 |
| Terms will always become coloured by usage. You give the classic example with 'gay': by implication, in its early usage, straight people were being called 'sad'. Few people now would make that connection.
From the other direction, I often find the term 'rationalist' thrown at me pejoratively. It's no use arguing back (that, for instance, your antagonist is thereby defining themselves as irrational). It's the usage that counts. Jon - Wed 25 Jun, 09:09:08 |
| In my opinion, 'Gay' was much less used than 'Bright' is.
But never fear, here are some other words you can use: aglow, alight, effulgent, fulgid, glary, glossy, lustrous, numinous. Personally I've always liked 'apostate' and 'nullifidian', but I understand the negative conotations. Zarba - Wed 25 Jun, 18:23:04 |
| 'Blight' has negative connotations, too. Ole - Thu 26 Jun, 14:57:44 |
| I like Dawkins, he's a very good scientist and a decent writer, but he doesn't half come across as a tosser sometimes. Rodney - Thu 26 Jun, 23:27:04 |
New comments have been disabled for years, now, as this blog is no longer updated. Sorry.