This most certainly is not “World News”. This is a self-promoting opinion piece boring on conspiracy theory.

To me, this attack has the master’s prints all over it — the USA had to be involved.

Right. Sorry!

Edit: Whoooosh

How do you decide on which news sources to read?

If a news outlet has indicated to me that they care more about ad revenue than reporting news, I avoid them.
If the only way an outlet feels they can get readership is with use of clickbait headlines, I avoid them.
If the headline is something like “you’ll never guess why ___ hates this” or “the reason you can’t blahblahblah” or some other salacious bullshit or they have a super cringe thumbnail on their YT video, I avoid them.
If a writer misconstrues the words of a celebrity or political leader for their own narrative, I avoid them.
If their bias prevents them from reporting the facts of an event, I avoid them.
“Avoid” does not mean never visit. It means I try not to and if I do I proceed with caution and skepticism with the intent to get another source.

If I’m searching for a news story, it’s probably because I came across it on social media (Lemmy) or a blog and want to get credible information. Or because someone here is quoting a story and I have a hunch they’re misinformed. I use DuckDuckGo and generally get decent reputable results at the top. At its face, I will never trust Google for fact checking. If I end up at a wiki page, I often check their sources.

I have an extensive list of reputable and/or diverse outlets in my RSS reader. The only “mainstream” American sources are NYT, AP, NPR, and Reuters. I’ve been using BigNews as my RSS reader for a year or so now. I really like its simple interface and ability to subscribe to newsletters. Newsletters are sometimes the best way to get a blurb off the news without subscribing to something like NYT. If I’m compelled enough, I’ll run a paywalled article through archive.is.

I don’t feel that people publishing on substack or medium, etc are reputable outlets for general news. That’s great for specific topics, opinions, and focused reporting.

The only news I pay for is my local newspaper. In addition to local reporting, they curate AP articles.

While I do have Ground News installed on my iPad, I only use it as a widget to let me know what’s going on. The sources it uses are generally not that great. Either the site is severely biased or the site is riddled with ads and pop ups. Basically every time I go to read an article it’s full of shit. I’ll give it credit as a substantial aggregator but it’s still pulling from sources that use click bait headlines. It’s not any better than social media.

One of us lacks rational thought and believes it’s plausible that bluetooth earrings were used to provide answers or coach a presidential candidate during a debate because they otherwise would be totally incapable of intelligent thought all on their own.

“We don’t want this for our country,” he said of Democratic policies. “That’s why I’m doing this. I don’t like doing this.”

Donald Trump on running for president: ‘I don’t like doing this’

Which one is it?

I’m sick of words being twisted for clicks and narrative enforcement. It’s clear, as this article has quoted him, that he’s doesn’t like what Democratic policies have done to the country and that he needs to run for president to fix them. He is not saying he doesn’t want to be president.

I’m tired of the lack of reading comprehension among grown adults across this increasingly stupid country.

Can we please vote this fucker out of relevancy so we can get back to human progress?

Thank you.

I’d like to know seven years after when.

Thanks.

I’m just here thinking, someone is asking a small group of people what they believe to be the definition of a word rather than use the vast wealth of knowledge published by experts in their field on these here internets.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/articles-heterodoxy/202208/inside-the-minds-the-incels

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12144-024-06236-6

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/10/new-paper-explores-the-rise-of-incels/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9780135/

Wiki: A portmanteau of “involuntary celibate”. A term associated with an online subculture of people (mostly white, male, and heterosexual who define themselves as unable to find a romantic or sexual partner despite desiring one, and blame, objectify and denigrate women and girls as a result. The movement is strongly linked to misogyny. Originally coined as “invcel” around 1997 by a queer Canadian female student known as Alana, the spelling had shifted to “incel” by 1999, and the term later rose to prominence in the 2010s, following the influence of misogynistic terrorists Elliot Rodger and Alek Minassian.

The headline is clickbait and does not accurately describe the content of the article.

This could be said about the vast majority of content published online today. This is why I’ve been trying to minimize my internet usage. So little of it is genuine.

I’ve updated on launch since iPhone was initially released. I can’t recall any time I ever had an issue with bugs; not to say others hadn’t. After seeing what this OS looks like, I will be holding out on iOS 17 (on my 12 mini) for as long as possible. Apple has gotten into the habit of breaking things that previously worked perfectly well for no apparent reason. Meanwhile, we can’t get basic things like smart folders or a decent music app. I’m really fed up with the crap this company puts out.

I don’t know about her involvement with this but there’s a snopes article about it. It’s wholly unfounded based on some random Facebook post.

A social media post originally from a Springfield Facebook group went viral nationally in recent days. The original poster did not cite first-hand knowledge of an incident. Instead they claimed that their neighbor’s daughter’s friend had lost her cat and found it hanging from a branch at a Haitian neighbor’s home being carved up to be eaten.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cats-ducks-haitians-springfield/

Thank you for the most thoughtful and direct answer.

I’d be curious to know how some of your friends and family responded to the shot taken at Trump’s ear.

I see.
Iraq - the country, had nothing to do with 9/11 - the attack.
Not, Iraq - the invasion of, was disassociated with 9/11 - the attack or national moment.

I mean, 9/11 and Iraq are indeed magically linked, thanks to Bush. “Magically” is actually a great word to define the link between the two. Look - Cheney just pulled a Saddam out of a Bush!

If it’s your understanding that Bush’s invasion of Iraq in 2002 “had nothing to do with 9/11”, you are grossly mistaken.

https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ243/PLAW-107publ243.pdf

That is not what I recall. What I do recall was both republicans and democrats having serious concerns that the government knew something we didn’t and that we were attacking a country for the president’s personal vendetta. This is based on my personal interactions with friends, family, and coworkers, as well as national and local news and newspapers. Granted, I’m from central NJ so perhaps we on higher alert and more “purple” than the rest of the country.

batshit insane morons

Was it birtherism or just Sarah Palin?

I think we can say most of our modern conspiracitardacy was fairly quiet till the social media wave.

I fully agree that social media has made things worse in this, and almost every, regard. Though, I’m trying to understand the mindset of Americans in 2001, not today, not post 2008.

The conspiracy around 9/11 was that the government knew more than they were telling us. That perhaps they were well aware of the event, possibly took part in it, and/or used it to manipulate public sentiment for invading Iraq for no other good reason or perhaps (ok, this I admit is crazy) setting up a new world order where we give up our rights for the sake of “national defense”. There would be no Wikileaks if there was no 9/11.

I admit this are a bit fringe-sounding but we were all aware of this back then. Didn’t most people believe there was some plausibility in these theories?

Don’t most people today believe the government knows more about 9/11 than they’ve told us?

So your evidence that it was only spoken about in my social circle is that your social circle didn’t talk about it?

The jet fuel burning steal beams is an interesting one. I remember, perhaps weeks after the event, if not days, scientists being interviewed on national news explaining the science about this and being very clear that this was certainly plausible - it wasn’t just the jet fuel but the surrounding materials and chimney like effect of the building which increased the fire’s temperature (don’t quote me on these details).

How it became the most prominent conspiracy theory is wild to me. Not dissimilar from a random xenophobic Facebook post about illegal immigrants eat pets becoming a major talking point during a presidential debate. Or how it was verified that the 2020 election was the most secure in our nation’s history yet more than half of Americans believe voter fraud is a serious threat.

As you’ve pointed out, that’s just a fraction of the “coincidences” surrounding this event. Individually, I could understand they’d be forgotten or swept under the rug but as a whole, it’s just a lot of stuff to swallow if you want to believe the “official” report. At the same time, I acknowledge that for this many “coincidences” to be planned out would probably be impossible to cover up.

In comparison, consider what’s know and still covered up about the JFK assassination. This is relatively small potatoes in scale compared to 9/11.

True. What ultimate came out of the event was the revelation that our intelligence communities were siloed from each other. This (embarrassing) point of failure may aid in explaining some of the questions in regard to preparedness.