My issue with ground news is it doesn't give any weight to funding sources when making its' bias ratings, which makes it easy for billionaire-funded media conglomerates with a "neutral and unbiased" front to fly under the radar.
It's because they're strange. The message they're communicating is inscrutable.
Didn't the MCU movies make a point to say it only matters if the person is worthy by Odin's standards? I guess it just means Magneto meets Odin's standards, whatever they are.
The solution to athlete's foot is to chop off your toes. Harder to get foot fungus without all those pointless crevices.
Stop concern trolling. The ridiculous nature of the "threat" makes it obvious they're being completely unserious.
Alright, I'll play along.
Claim:
The document titled hamas human shields released by NATO Strategic Communications is propaganda.
Argument:
Merriam-Webster defines propaganda as-
the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
Let's break that down. To determine whether the NATO StratCom document hamas human shields meets the criteria for propaganda we need to answer the following:
Q: Does the item in question contain ideas, information, or rumor?
A: Without having to verify any claims you can still confidently state that the document contains at least one if not all of these. Statements of opinion can be classified as ideas, and statement of fact can be considered either information or rumor depending upon the amount and veracity of supporting evidence.
Q: Was the item in question spread for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person?
A: By posting the document on a public forum for the purpose of defending NATO's actions, you yourself fulfilled this criteria. Prior to that, NATO StratCom also fulfilled it, as they have an implicit interest in defending the actions of NATO (which this document serves to do)
For example: I can point to evidence that Tasnim News is propaganda.
I don't dispute this.
Unless you disagree with the meaning of the word propaganda then everything I said is a statement of fact, not a personal opinion. What do you mean when you say propaganda (and don't just give examples, actually define it).
there's nothing "propaganda" about NATO
You can't be serious. Everyone does propaganda, propaganda is everywhere. Just because you happen to agree with NATO propaganda doesn't mean it isn't propaganda. Your original comment is propaganda, the responses to it are propaganda, this entire comment section is full of propaganda. Anyone disseminating information reflecting the views or interests of any doctrine or cause is engaging in propaganda.
Edit: 
I misread your comment, that's my mistake. I thought you were saying that trans rights no longer being under attack is why you wish you would stop hearing about them.
trans rights are no longer under attack.
Yes they are, you've just stopped hearing about it because the Democrats mostly stopped playing defense for them. Turns out a tiny minority has a very small voice when it isn't being amplified by people with access to power and privilege. It's similar to the way Democrats now support right-wing border policy despite paying lip service to leftist ideas about the border and immigration. It's just another cause the Democrats cynically co-opted until it was no longer convenient.
The underside instantly darkens when scratched.
But why? That's a very hard sell and a very inefficient use of your time. At best you could convince some anarchists of the harm reduction argument, but you could never convince anarchists to be enthusiastic about voting for Kamala, which is what those very absurd memes seem to be trying to do.
Edit: And very ineffectively I might add. I still can't make heads or tails of what those memes are trying to say.