The RRS Gets On My Nerves

[shitshou]

I was thinking if we got 'em to convert to evangelical Christianity they'd feel more at home.

[hecaterin]

The what where?

[Sinister]

The Rational Response Squad? Why, what did they do?

[AbsoluteSpunk]

http://breakingspells.wordpress.com/...ot-make-it-so/

Calling yourself “rational” might not make it so
Posted on January 6, 2008 by ylooshi

Lately, the “Rational Response Squad” has been making a bit of buzz in the atheosphere (and even in the theosphere).

... Enter Reed Braden of UnorthodoxAtheism, who revealed that he encountered Cutler and one of his sidekicks in a chatroom where they made accusations that Richard Dawkins had or was having an affair outside of his marriage. This accusation made in the wake of RRS apparently not being able to ride the Richard Dawkins Foundation coattails. Braden later published another chatroom transcript where Cutler attempted to plead, beg, and -finally- threaten Braden in order to prevent him from further discussing or publishing the accusation. Ostensibly because “If this news gets out, Richard Dawkins will be nothing tomorrow (Brian Sapient),” although it smells strongly of self-preservation, mostly since it hasn’t much chance of being true based on the juvenile and irrational actions of the, perhaps, inappropriately named RRS.

Matt at [GBG] Atheist News writes that It’s Time to Drop the Rational Response Squad. And by “drop,” he means not link to them in blogrolls and not to reference them in serious discourse.

I saw it all, and Google cache did too.

[Sinister]

^I see. Drama. :Melodramatic:

[AbsoluteSpunk]

Not my drama, not my problem.

[Aerik]

I saw it all as well. I actually got in on Braden's retarded post pretty early. You'll see me in the comments on the thread(s).

Basically, in a Skype group chat, Brian and Kelly had some news about a certain scientist that they felt they'd be able to prove if they had to, and they wanted input on how to handle it and how they could support said scientist if this information were to get out and cause a publicity nightmare.

Braden decides that he thinks the RRS is "riding on Dawkins' coattails". Nothing could be further from the truth, really. RRS was well-established long before Dawkins became an atheist celebrity. Even as Braden was whining and acting like an asshole with the rest of his posse, the RRS was acquiring new websites into their ring, including being given the 3 atheist celebrity list sites by Infidels.org. The RRS lives in their house (aka "the bunker") thanks to a wealthy anonymous investor and donations from their forum members and listeners.

All Braden and his fellow weiners could do was complain that the RRS forums look bad, lie about how their show and site(s) is/are dying (patently untrue), and basically run a circle-jerk in their comment thread.

What makes Braden especially fucktarded is that if he thinks that the rumors about Dawkins are so damaging, why did he republish them? Which do you think makes atheists and Dawkins look worse?

A) atheists being open and honest about each other's mistakes and shortcomings.

or...

B) Braden taking methodology right from Machiavelli, seeking to quell an isolated rumor by introducing it to the mainstream himself with his own personal spin, being every bit as toady as he accuses others of so being.

Obviously, B.

In the end, two people close to Dawkins were able to get Braden to delete the two posts.

It may have been a severe mistake for Brian and Kelly to assume that those visiting in the skype chat were all willing to be discrete, but that's all they did wrong. They still maintain they can prove their claim, but they also were the first to urge others to keep it quiet and not let the media get a whiff of it without context. It was Braden who took it upon himself to make that faux pas. Brian and Kelly were looking for help on how to get a hold of Richard and warn him. They were trying to help him. Braden was only trying to help himself.

Furthermore, for ylooshi to write that the RRS is "without academic or redeeming merit" shows that he has never listened to many of their shows or bothered to stick around when they're seriously dealing with a debater. Rook Hawkins has definitely established himself as one of the brightest and most eloquent biblical scholar atheists in the nation, and Kelly is on her way to a degree in pscyhology.

When they are not just having fun with their chatroom(s), dealing with theist trolls, doing announcements and other projects, and instead making a show and doing a serious debate, they have done the best job of representing rationality and logically dismantling theism that you could ask for.

Of course, you could only know this if you bothered to listen in on their shows and long serious discussions, which most people don't. If it's not a 30 to 60 podcast rated pg-13 so you don't get caught by your mom, it's just not worth it, is it, assholes?

[Sinister]

snip snip snip

Geez louise, what crawled up your ass and died? I can't honestly imagine why anyone would give a toss about any of the above vapourdrama. I didn't know about it until today, and *gasp* I don't care now that I do know about it.

Give the :vapours: a rest.

[Aerik]

Why aren't you giving Stopper the same gaff for bringing it up if you find it so irrelevant?

[Sinister]

Why aren't you giving Stopper the same gaff for bringing it up if you find it so irrelevant?

Oh goody, you're dense too. Look at the post above Stopper's. That's me - asking a question. Stopper answered it, briefly, and provided a link if more info was wanted or required.

You, on the other hand, blew in with an obvious personal bent, acting like everyone here knows the RSS people and should be outraged on their part. :Bored:

[Aerik]

You ask a question. Stopper answers. I refute stopper's answer. And somehow *I* am the one talking about something irrelevant and bloating the thread?

Also, I didn't act as if you should know them. In fact, I pretty much declared that obviously you don't.

[Sinister]

You ask a question. Stopper answers. I refute stopper's answer. And somehow *I* am the one talking about something irrelevant and bloating the thread?

Yep.

Also, I didn't act as if you should know them. In fact, I pretty much declared that obviously you don't.

Yes, in such a non-biased manner, too! :catrolleye: Then again, you're terribly impressed by someone getting a psychology degree. You want to come in here with a personal agenda, fine. Just expect to get whacked over the head with it now and again.

[Aerik]

Ah I see. You're the kind of moron that thinks "unbiased" means acting as if both sides have equal merit. But they don't. The guy at breaking spells was using selective sampling. Braden was using selective sampling. They never bother to have real conversations with the RRS or listen to their shows or sit in with their chat sessions, yet feel confident to pontificate about what happens therein. *that* is bias. *that* is propagandism. And all I did was point that out. You asked what rrs did, stopper answered, and I explained that the guy in stopper's link was wrong about what the rrs "did". It was addressing fully stopper's link and quote, and because of that is not irrelevant.

[JOZeldenrust]

Aerik, quit being a whiny bitch. You made a bunch of empirical claims which lack a logical context, and which seem pretty irrelevant even if they were supplied with a logical context (claims about a scientists private life), then you tried to draw logical conclusions from those empirical statements by giving your idea of the thought processes of those involved. Anyone who has ever spent even a casual thought to the standards of journalism should've known better.

Sinister is absolutely right in her classification of this entire non-event: it's vapourdrama.

RRS, Braden and Aerik need to shut the fuck up.

[Hydra009]

When they are not just having fun with their chatroom(s), dealing with theist trolls, doing announcements and other projects, and instead making a show and doing a serious debate, they have done the best job of representing rationality and logically dismantling theism that you could ask for.

Eh, I have seen better. I caught their debate with Kirk Cameron. They did okay, imo. Thank God Cameron's a dumbass.

Of course, you could only know this if you bothered to listen in on their shows and long serious discussions, which most people don't. If it's not a 30 to 60 podcast rated pg-13 so you don't get caught by your mom, it's just not worth it, is it, assholes?

Assholes??

Just so you know, people here have done exactly that.

[Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ]

You ask a question. Stopper answers. I refute stopper's answer. And somehow *I* am the one talking about something irrelevant and bloating the thread?

Yes, because no one here likes you. As in every other internet argument ever, how you personally feel about the people colors how you feel about their arguments.

That, and no one cares enough to make lots of noise about it.

[Sinister]

Ah I see. You're the kind of moron that thinks "unbiased" means acting as if both sides have equal merit. But they don't. The guy at breaking spells was using selective sampling. Braden was using selective sampling. They never bother to have real conversations with the RRS or listen to their shows or sit in with their chat sessions, yet feel confident to pontificate about what happens therein. *that* is bias. *that* is propagandism. And all I did was point that out. You asked what rrs did, stopper answered, and I explained that the guy in stopper's link was wrong about what the rrs "did". It was addressing fully stopper's link and quote, and because of that is not irrelevant.

Your diatribes are irrelevant, cupcake. In response to my question, Stopper did two simple things: provide a link and a brief cut & paste. She did not indulge in an angsty whinge about the personalities involved. Stopper did not write the info she provided. Why you can't seem to grasp the difference between providing basic info and a rant which read like a third rate soap opera, I don't know. I was fully capable of researching the matter more fully if I had wanted; I didn't care enough to do so.

I do not know you, nor do I know any of the parties involved in the vapourdrama. It's a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. It obviously matters to you, and it's certainly personal to you, but it's a mistake to assume it's personal to anyone else.

On top of your flying in here, feathers all aruffle, you just had to attempt to insult every person on this board with this nugget of rational expression:

Of course, you could only know this if you bothered to listen in on their shows and long serious discussions, which most people don't. If it's not a 30 to 60 podcast rated pg-13 so you don't get caught by your mom, it's just not worth it, is it, assholes?

That's quite the assumption you're making there, cupcake. And I don't know about you, by my mother hasn't been involved in my life for over 35 years, so that's not exactly a worry on my part; and it makes for an incredibly pathetic attempt at insult.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Furthermore, for ylooshi to write that the RRS is "without academic or redeeming merit" shows that he has never listened to many of their shows or bothered to stick around when they're seriously dealing with a debater. Rook Hawkins has definitely established himself as one of the brightest and most eloquent biblical scholar atheists in the nation, and Kelly is on her way to a degree in pscyhology.

When they are not just having fun with their chatroom(s), dealing with theist trolls, doing announcements and other projects, and instead making a show and doing a serious debate, they have done the best job of representing rationality and logically dismantling theism that you could ask for.

Why don't you just marry them.

[shitshou]

Actually, I didn't know about that particular bit of gossip mongering concerning Dawkins, but it's hardly surprising.

I just don't like the RRS because I think 'Brian Sapient' is 1) a really obnoxious, pretentious thing to call yourself, 2) an egomaniac who seems more interested in shock value and getting attention for himself than promoting atheism or secularism, 3) kind of stupid and 4) decidedly not cool in spite of what appears to be serious effort to be hip, cool or 'edgy'. I think it's number 4 that gets on my nerves the most. He makes me think of the way Christians try to make Christianity hip, cool and edgy, when really it so clearly is the anti-cool. People should not try to be cool. You're either cool or you're not. If you are, it's effortless and natural. If you're not, trying just makes you seem even lamer.

[Pavlov's Dog]

I think it's number 4 that gets on my nerves the most. He makes me think of the way Christians try to make Christianity hip, cool and edgy, when really it so clearly is the anti-cool. People should not try to be cool. You're either cool or you're not. If you are, it's effortless and natural. If you're not, trying just makes you seem even lamer.

I don't know this guy you are talking about, but I hate when Christianity tries to be cool like that.

[shitshou]

I think it's number 4 that gets on my nerves the most. He makes me think of the way Christians try to make Christianity hip, cool and edgy, when really it so clearly is the anti-cool. People should not try to be cool. You're either cool or you're not. If you are, it's effortless and natural. If you're not, trying just makes you seem even lamer.

I don't know this guy you are talking about, but I hate when Christianity tries to be cool like that.

'Brian Sapient' is the leader(?) of the RRS. He did that completely retarded debate on 20/20 with Kirk Cameron. He ostensibly changed his name to 'Brian Sapient' for fear of assassination or some idiot crap like that. I think he's a douche.

[I_pity_the_fool]

Heh.

http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Brian_Sapient

[Pavlov's Dog]

Heh.

http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Brian_Sapient

Thanks for that. Now I finally know who they are and what is going on.

[Benedictus]

Why is Dawkins' personal life relevant to anybody but him and his family? Do the evangelical/fundy/assholes think they'll make points if they prove he's getting some on the side?

This is very discouraging for people who hope that discussion can help to bridge the differences between people. It reminds me of what Bertrand Russell said in "on the value of scepticism":

Take the question of unemployment in the years after 1920. One party held that it was due to the wickedness of trade unions, another that it was due to the confusion on the Continent. A third party, while admitting that these causes played a part, attributed most of the trouble to the policy of the Bank of England in trying to increase the value of the pound sterling. This third party, I am given to understand, contained most of the experts, but no one else. Politicians do not find any attractions in a view which does not lend itself to party declamation, and ordinary mortals prefer views which attribute misfortune to the machinations of their enemies. Consequently people fight for and against quite irrelevant measures, while the few who have a rational opinion are not listened to because they do not minister to any one's passions. To produce converts, it would have been necessary to persuade people that the Bank of England is wicked. To convert Labour, it would have been necessary to show that directors of the Bank of England are hostile to trade unionism; to convert the Bishop of London, it would have been necessary to show that they are "immoral." It would be thought to follow that their views currency are mistaken.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell4.htm

[AbsoluteSpunk]

Heh.

http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Brian_Sapient

Thanks for that. Now I finally know who they are and what is going on.

This is also why the RRS is too butthurt to support the Anonymous raids on Scientology.