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.

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.

highly debatable if they knew enough to stop it.

Well, the theory that was floated at the time was that they didn’t want to stop it. The very fringe suggested it was entirely planned by the US. They (Bush et al) knew this would provoke our military and provide an excuse to attack the Middle East. To finish was Bush senior didn’t.

Again, I don’t really want to get down a rabbit hole of validating theories. I want to know if others recall this being a national conversation or if it was just the hundreds of people I knew and news outlets I was watching.

I’ve talked about it with a lot of people over the years and have yet to meet a single conspiracy theorist.

These theories were floated, with legitimacy, on local and national news, at the time. Not in the sense of, “it’s theorized that there were antifa plants at Jan 6” but “look here at this video and you could see how some implosion experts are saying this is the pattern for a scheduled building collapse”. They were interviewing people in manhattan who had concerns about a government coverup.

At the time, the regular news (before it got ridiculous) was pulling together all these theories and presenting them together. It was overwhelming that there was much more to this event. And it seems to have all been forgotten.

most people just forgot about, or stopped listening to the conspiracies.

This is what I think happened. People just stopped caring and defaulted back to “trusting the government” or were distracted by other things like the war in Afghanistan and the 2008 financial crisis.

In my mind, these theories were still prevalent for at least a few years after the attacks. And now, 20 years later, people forgot so much that they’ve accepted that only weirdo internet trolls believe in these fringe theories.

Sure. Regardless, their terms and conditions should give you some idea of how they’re using technology to permit and/or restrict access.

The reason that an iTunes video purchase is encrypted illegal to copy is because it is illegal to break the encryption in order to make a copy

FTFY

I don’t think content providers are encrypting things because it’s illegal to decrypt things. They’re encrypting things because the content producers (movie studios) want to ensure that (1) they’re getting paid for the content, (1B) it’s not given away for free and, (2) they’re in business to make money.

To my knowledge, there are no laws about making copies. Breaking encryption is illegal because the encryption itself is protected under law. Selling copies is illegal. Playing copies of something for which you are not permitted or do not legally own a license to watch is illegal. So, if you make a copy of a cassette tape, legal; profiting from that copy, illegal.

Copyright law is not contract law.

Some items have time limits - such as renting a movie from iTunes or Amazon or borrowing a book from a physical or digital library. You are entering a contract with the provider where they grant you temporary access to something. If you were to make a copy of something you were given temporary access to, you are breaking the contract.

I don’t know what the agreement is for football organizations or your content provider. If you’re breaking broadcast or HDMI encryption to record a stream, that’s illegal. If you’re somehow bypassing encryption, that is probably legal. I do know that it’s illegal to re-broadcast the content in public and to resell that program. There are also some fair use rules (in the US) which permit limited use for commentary and education purposes.

If you have legally obtained something, you have agreed to the terms of ownership with the provider / owner / creator of the content. Whether you find a document on your computer or you have paid for it, it does not explicitly give you full ownership of that data forever.

For example: if you buy a DVD from a store, you’re actually purchasing a license to watch the content of that DVD. If you were to give or sell that disc to someone else, you are transferring your permission to watch that disc to them. So, if you were to rip that movie to your computer, legally - you only have permission to watch that for as long as you are in possession of that physical media.
Conversely, if you were to “buy” a movie from an online platform, they may relinquish your right to watch that movie if the publisher of that content (or a government agency) no longer permits them to stream that content to you. If you were to download that movie, that does not change the agreement you made with the service to watch it. This is why it’s not possible to save an iTunes video purchase to your computer in a non-encrypted format.

In other words, you’ve got to read the terms and conditions. Even then, they may change the terms and conditions of the agreement.

Digital tools as you’ve described could be used by the service to manage access to content. A book’s author or publisher may object to the book being available for free. There may be limits on the amount of time you can read a book. Some content may be public domain but there may be versions of that content which the publisher has altered to in some way making some portions of the book not public domain.

Knowingly possessing something that was not freely provided to you or the public by the licensed owner, or otherwise known to be unprotected by copyright, is not legal. Just because a file is cached on your device does not mean you are the legal owner of that content forever.

There’s a number of reasons you may be charged to download a pdf. It could be a means of legally granting ownership and sharing revenue with the content owner. It could be because the authorized provider of the content is simply charging to maintain the service you’ve acquired the content from. It could be both or it could be a sketchy website just trying to get your CC info.

This is coming from the perspective of someone in the US. I’m not sure about the rest of the world but imagine basic copyright laws are similar around the world.

He’s a compulsive liar who’s angry at things he’s fabricated for his own benefit. How the fuck is he even being considered for the job?

I don’t even have vibration on. The display will turn on to show notifications but the vast majority of the time my phone is in another room on the charger. I even leave it at home some times.

I’ve had trouble listening to podcasts while I’m home doing other things. Perhaps I should try audio books and sitting down to do nothing but that. Generally, I don’t like audio books for a bunch of reasons but they could be applicable for this issue. Thanks for the suggestion.

The only person you’re fooling here is yourself.