Words in the entirely wrong order

→ KeAkua has joined
ⓘ  U.S. companies added whopping 298,000 new jobs in February. Trump signs revised travel ban Executive Order.  US Congress announces H.R.1275 – World’s Greatest Healthcare Plan of 2017 (No I didn't make up that name)
ⓘ Raven`X set mode +v KeAkua
+Banquo
i love you guys
+Dreams2X
Bannon speaks to the voices in Donald 's head.
Ignoring Dreams2X!*@*
Ignoring Banquo!*@*
@Mabus
that snl skit was glorious :)
+TheSkeptic
Yes lol
[CancelBot]
BibleBot is online. Serving acv akjv amp apo asv avot bbe bom dict dar dou greek heb hebrew hnv jps kjv kjv+ litv nasb niv nkjv quran rot rsv strongs web ylt yng vulgate. We also translate. In channel !help
+TheSkeptic
That's where I got the grim reaper thing from
+TurtlesAllTheWayUp
Jones is only the tip of the iceberg.  He's like the barbarian berserker at the head of the pack.  There are other names you need to know as well, just as fringe crackpot, just as insidious:  Mark Levin, Michael Savage, Rick Wiles, and Dave Daubenmire, to name a few.
+THERetroGamerNY
Pretty sure Alex Jones IS one of those voices...
+TheSkeptic
I laughed so hard
+KeAkua
I didn't like Steven Bannon as the Grim Reaper.
I thought it was over the top.
+TheSkeptic
TurtlesAllTheWayUp: Up until not so long ago, Milo Yiannopolous too
Or however you spell the guy's name
+KeAkua
Oddly, it was a continuation of one of the claims made by Bannon on the media.
+Raven`
I hear voices in my head, they talk to me.
+TurtlesAllTheWayUp
Yeah, Milo was a bound to get taken down.  He finally found a line even right wingers wouldn't cross.
+KeAkua
Do you call them God?
Ignoring Raven`!*@*
+TheSkeptic
KeAkua: I think it was funny because they were also going for the look, since the circles underneath Bannon's eyes gives him this deathly look
+KeAkua
TurtlesAllTheWayDown: I didn't think he crossed a line with his comments.
Though, his net effect on the national conversation may have been negative.
And he certainly earned a lot of enemies.
Finally, there's reporting that he was quite vicious with those who opposed him.
I think Rolling Stone had an article on that last claim.
+TurtlesAllTheWayUp
KeAkua  Defending relationships between grown men and pubescent boys was too far for even right wingers.  It cost him his job, his book deal, and his speaking engagements.
+TheSkeptic
If you mean Milo, you need to understand we're talking about when he seemingly glorified pedophilia, KeAkua.
+KeAkua
It was too far for right-wingers, empirically.
+CaveGuy
nite
+KeAkua
I didn't find this comments objectionable.
+TheSkeptic
CaveGuy: byew
+KeAkua
those*
+TheSkeptic
Dreams2X: lol yeah
+KeAkua
TheSkeptic: He never glorified pedophilia.
You're being imprecise with your language.
+TheSkeptic
He looks so messed up
+TurtlesAllTheWayUp
I found the idea of defending pedophile to be highly objectionable.
+TheSkeptic
Oh, it's YOU.
+KeAkua
He said at least a subset of sexual relationships between boys and older men can be beneficial.
+TheSkeptic
You're the guy with pastebins of every single convo you've had.
I remember you.
+KeAkua
Pedophilia is a medical condition, like diabetes, and cannot be glorified.
+TheSkeptic
Ohh, jesus christ.
* TheSkeptic goes back to work.
Ignoring TheSkeptic!*@*
+KeAkua
You have signaled you are done.
I accept.
* Mabus looks up
+TurtlesAllTheWayUp
KeAkua  His claims were egriously false and mirroed claims by activists who seek to molest children, such as NAMBLA.
+KeAkua
Words combined in wrong ways can be pretty upsetting for most humans.
(I'm not one of them, though)
+THERetroGamerNY
"I'm IRC's biggest loser." - Lania
+KeAkua
TurtlesAllTheWayDown: false.
The Rind et al study possibly validates his claims.
Are you familiar?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rind_et_al._controversy
+sbalneav
Rind et al. controversy - Wikipedia
+KeAkua
The study's lead author is psychologist Bruce Rind, and it expanded on a 1997 meta-analysis for which Rind is also lead author.[2] The authors stated their goal was to determine whether CSA caused pervasive, significant psychological harm for both males and females, controversially concluding that the harm caused by child sexual abuse was not necessarily intense or pervasive,[3] that the prevailing construct of CSA was not scientifically valid, as it failed empirical verification, and that the psychological damage caused by the abusive encounters depends on other factors such as the degree of coercion or force involved.[1] The authors concluded that even though CSA may not result in lifelong, significant harm to all victims, this does not mean it is not morally wrong and indicated that their findings did not imply current moral and legal prohibitions against CSA should be changed.[1]
+TurtlesAllTheWayUp
KeAkua  No, it doesn't.
+KeAkua
Are you familiar with the study?
ⓘ Mabus set mode +b *!*@50-255-225-131-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net
× You have been kicked by Mabus (Mabus)