> Personally, I ditched almost all western media outlets altogether because of their zionist and fascist tendencies.

That is not helpful, and a very good way of falling down rabbit holes just because you find a source that agrees with you on one subject. That’s how you get manipulated and radicalised.

It’s much better to have a variety of sources, even if you occasionally disagree. It keeps you grounded and reminds you that other people have other opinions.

I cannot stress this enough: do not get polarised because of a single issue. That is how rational discourse dies.

As I said elsewhere, I can't even find a single source....

For important world news there are a lot of options. However the most important news is my local community. Who covers my local school district - nobody. (This isn't true, they do send a sports reporter to the school games - but not to the school board meetings even though they matter more)

When that single issue is a genocide, the calculus changes. Would you feel the same about a news source that argues the Hutus were acting in self defense?

The irony of leftists trying to kick people out for having opinions they don't like always makes me sad.

And before someone mentions the paradox of tolerance: The paradox clears itself up if you look at what tolerance actually is. It's simply not interfering with people's agency over themselves. Given that your right to self-agency doesn't entitle you to restrict others' self-agency, behavior that does try restricting others' agency is automatically not included in "tolerance."

It's one thing if both sides believe they are attempting to restrict each others' self-agency. It's also possible that both of you are wrong. Whose place is it to say what is right OR wrong? Is there even always a right or wrong? I don't think so.