caught up

[juldea]

Yar, I hate it when I get 300+ friends' posts behind. It's 4:15am and I'm now caught up on LJ and email enough to go to sleep for a couple of hours. Tomorrow will be interesting.

I made a new usericon. I am intruiged by their beliefs, and would like to have susbscribed to their newsletter.

It occurs to link to my con writeup in interconlarp for those who don't read it: http://community.livejournal.com/interconlarp/91099.html

I spent 30 minutes today ranting to an internet friend about A Tale of Time Travel. I don't mean saying some things and discussing them. I mean that I pretty much typed for 30 minutes straight, with him responding every couple of minutes with a <10 word response that indicated he was still paying attention.

...is it bad when you get into a character sufficiently that you retain a bit of a crush on the person you had a romance plot with? >_>

The artists of the "Current Music" are Mr. Elk and Mr. Seal. There is not enough room in the text box for their names.

Comments

Re: The Brights

[juldea.livejournal.com]

What's the problem here? A bunch of terms can be used to describe me that have seriously negative context, so I have decided to be a fan of using a new word that's not so tainted. I'd like to point out that there was a recent poll on the Brights' site to come up with a similar word for those with supernatural worldviews, and although the winner was "supernaturalists" it seems that the popular trend is going with "supers."

So, you call me bright, I'll call you super, you believe I'm wrong, and I'll believe you're wrong. Sounds good to me. :)

Re: The Brights

[etherfinker.livejournal.com]

I for one am not a fan of the word-play. For one thing... well, it just sounds cheesy. I don't care to refer to myself and those who are like-minded with a term that makes me sound like a laundry detergent, when there are already well-established, well-defined, serviceable words which explain me, like "atheist" and "secular humanist". Secondly, I also don't like spin-doctoring. This "brights" thing - it's a PR move, a way to soften the blow to the non-unbelievers and deflect controversy or conflict. I don't think this is a good choice. I don't think we should let the hateful opinion of the tyrranical majority frighten us into giving up words like "atheist" or "liberal", the words which describe people like myself, in favor of labels that obscure our beliefs. I don't think it is helpful in the long run to be meek in the face of persecution.

Whether or not those words have a negative connotation, the words that the Brights would have us only whisper under our breath, is dependent solely on who you ask. As far as I'm concerned, in contrast, words like "faith" and "believer" and "Christian" carry the huge negative connotation. When I hear those words come out of someone's mouth, I know it's time to walk away. When I hear "humanist" and "atheist", I am drawn to the sound. And when I hear "brights", I laugh and roll my eyes.

Re: The Brights

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Yes, but humanist and atheist and agnostic are singular groups that the Brights are attempting to assist in mobilizing together, finding the common ground, and being more of a voice than we are otherwise. Divided, we're conquered, or something.