[dqx]

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.

[dang]

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.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[staysafeanon]

>Study? You're hoping for a peer-reviewed science journal that published an article on who's offended by Joe Rogan?

Oh, so you have nothing. Thanks for agreeing with me. Your points dismissed.

>The original claim was that the total number of people still offended by COVID-victim Joe Rogan's comments was "none."

Not my nor your claim. Stop shifting goal posts.

>I've posted evidence to support mine

Wrong, you've posted none such thing, as I have proven above. You still haven't supplied evidence to support your claim.

>your defense is a thought-terminating cliché coined by a game show host.

Yellow journalism predates the birth of Trump, wrong again.

[dang]

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.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html