Using the term “articles” is generous considering the dubious sources that get posted here that conveniently parrots a particular viewpoint. The problem isn’t necessarily an organizational problem, but moreso a credibility problem in the spaghetti that gets posted. Trying to spot the bullshit from the factual is what I find exhausting. OP is right to filter out this content until this platform figures out how to handle propaganda and innuendo federating like wildfire.

But you are making a choice: you’re choosing to only let observable facts influence your beliefs. Everyone is an atheist by default, and most of them are then told to believe what they’re told from birth, but at some point people make a conscious choice on how information is prioritized. Humans aren’t read-only and I would say it’s a safe bet that most people have the opportunity to influence their own beliefs and act accordingly. Obviously if someone is abused and doesn’t develop mentally, then yeah, don’t hate the person but don’t necessarily give up on helping that person develop, either

If you truly think Hamas is not as bad or worse than Israeli counter-actions, you should reflect on your own beliefs. In this conflict, the military wings of both sides ARE deplorable and deserve universal condemnation. Hamas’s goal is the eradication of Jews; any benefit to the Palestinians under their thumb is accidental at best. If you support Hamas, you support genocide. If you support the IDF’s actions, you support genocide. Full stop.

The Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) and the 10th Amendment clearly state that the federal government has more, read: supreme, power over the states. You may be misremembering that the phrase “nor prohibited by it to the States” exists in the amendment. Basically, a federal law today will immediately and automatically nullify a 200 year old state law - precedence nor time of the state law will survive a Supreme Court review even if all 9 Justices are Federalist Society lackeys.

How many years of Israeli occupation have to go by until it is no longer considered occupation and Israeli land? There has to be a dividing line between the expulsions 1400 years ago and that time where the land became Palestinian, no? Palestinians and Israelis (Jewish, Muslim, Christian, non-religious, etc.) have an equal claim to existence - many of those that want to disband the colonist state of Israel are also advocating genocide. Genocide doesn’t always mean killing - it also means the destruction of national identity. It’s obvious that a two state solution is necessary to stop and avoid future genocide of both peoples. “River to the sea” never meant coexistence and I think it’s about time people stop advocating for a counter-genocide with that slogan.

The privacy policy at startup links to a very comprehensive version. I think someone may have posted it above.