Monomate

I think people with ridiculous views should not have an issue with being ridiculed for those views.

You're under no obligation to agree with another person point of view. But, if you're presenting your arguments in good faith, you should be prepared to listen to the person you disagree with in good faith also. If you immediately disregard what others have to say just because you think it's "too ridiculous to consider", or throw the ad hominem starter pack: bigot, nazi, far-right, trumper, etc, then you're just insulating yourself in a bubble in the best case scenario, or showing you don't have the capability to articulate your argument effectively in the worst case scenario.

It really feels like you're the immature bunch, trying to hide who you are because you're too fragile to own up to it if it's being scrutinized.

It's not a matter of trying to hide anything for the sake of it. It's just that some people use the free availability of a user's previous posts/likes as a shortcut for "whataboutisms". You may disagree with other posts I made, but what is being discussed here is the reasonableness of individual "likes" being public or not.

I think the crude scrutiny of a persons past posts to be, in many cases, dishonored. The person being scrutinized may have changed their views since then, specially when the post is years-old.

If you disagree, you're free to offer your counter-arguments.

You have just proved right there why current internet users in general don't have the maturity to have likes publicly visible. The urge to do a witch hunt is just too irresistible.

She said she regrets not having publicized her opinions on this subject earlier, so if her likes wouldn't have exposed her, her subsequent retweets certainly would.

The fact is so well-known that a simple Google search gives multiples articles confirming it. You suggested this criteria yourself. 🤔

In the end of the day, it's the law of the strongest. It's no accident that Israel hoard a lot of weapons of war and build defensive systems like the Iron Dome. It's a show of power for a very simple goal: deterrence. I don't think Israel really though of using all their weapons, but just having them makes every one the enemy nations that surround them to think twice before attacking them. Well, Hamas did not think twice. And they cannot say they didn't saw it coming.

Israel accepting a ceasefire deal would be nice for saving lives and all, but would leave them vulnerable for future missile attacks from Hamas. A nation will always think of its own citizens first. Maybe the Hamas already counted with this reaction of Israel, and though that other Arab countries would form a coalition to fight Israel simultaneously. Well, it didn't pan out. Deterrence worked after all.

So, the ideal solution for you is a return to the status quo, but with the Hamas getting away with it. Plus a bonus: multiple prisoners released just for returning the hostages to their homes, from where they should never have been kidnapped from in the first place. And, the cherry in top, the Hamas still having the capability of launching missiles whenever it pleases. What a great deal! (for the Hamas only, of course)

Okay, if a Google search will make you believe me, here goes:

Does USA university students and faculty have a left-leaning bias?

Most search results confirm what I said. And remember: this is not an exact science, but a subjective assessment. Certainly there are university students that didn't notice that bias because their institution was more politically neutral, or said person was not enrolled in humanities courses so the political activism was not very close to their day-to-day lives. But, in general, the bias is real and is only getting more intense as political polarization is on the rise globally.