Thank you for agreeing, many (a word you used first) people are still upset about Rogan's comments, disproving your point that "none" are. If you have anything but blind speculation you're going on, feel free to provide it!
>I was pretty sure you wouldn't have any criticism more nuanced than "FAKE NEWS," but it's nice to see it confirmed.
And as usual, you're wrong. You still haven't linked any study or non-yellow journalism that tries to objectively capture how "many" people are still mad at Joe Rogan.
>I provided a few links because you're apparently unable to use search engines.
A few links to fake news outposts that did not support your claim whatsoever. If you can't find a legitimate claim to your original statement, it can be dismissed outright. You still haven't found anything, and so you're claims are dismissed.
Study? You're hoping for a peer-reviewed science journal that published an article on who's offended by Joe Rogan?
The original claim was that the total number of people still offended by COVID-victim Joe Rogan's comments was "none." No evidence supports that claim, so we can dismiss it outright, like you said.
I've posted evidence to support mine, your defense is a thought-terminating cliché coined by a game show host.
We've banned this account for posting flamewar comments and using HN primarily for ideological battle. Those things are against the site guidelines because (a) they are not what this site is for, and (b) they destroy what it is for—regardless of which ideology you're battling for or against.
We've banned this account for posting flamewar comments and using HN primarily for ideological battle. Those things are against the site guidelines because (a) they are not what this site is for, and (b) they destroy what it is for—regardless of which ideology you're battling for or against.
Except in reality their coworkers weren't farting on every burger, they were just giggling over non-PC jokes, and the camera system confirmed that there was no farting.
Sadly, the employee that leaked/whistleblew is suffering from a mental illness, and they delusionally thought their coworkers were farting on the burgers.
>There is, of course, no bias in the types of people who are comfortable with and can easily pass a background check, and those who are not or cannot.
You're correct, there's no bias on the system for background checks. Anyone of any race, color, or creed can get a background check to verify their eligibility to exercise their right to own/carry firearms and vote.
>There is, of course, no bias in the types of people that have one but not the other.
I agree, and it's in Texas' state law: any legal resident regardless of race, color, or creed can apply for a concealed carry license. It's truly bias free.
Yes, but student IDs don't even prove state residency (you can be a Florida resident but attend University of Texas in Austin), which is a basic requirement for voting.
>For example, Texas allows you to use a gun club membership as ID but not a student ID [1]
You fell for fake news. A Texas concealed handgun license is not a "gun club membership", it's an official state photo ID that requires a background check, fingerprinting, and an 8 hour course to obtain.
Two completely different concepts. You can vote at home at your leisure. You have to find a block of time and physically appear somewhere to vote in person. Voter ID laws are immaterial to that point.
