Page 1 of 1

Rule 34 for conspiracy theories?

Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 6:26 pm UTC
by jasc15
A post on another forum re: the Kennedy assassination...

"The smart money is on space aliens. They had to make sure the Apollo program didn't go too far."

..made me wonder if there was such a combination of conspiracy theories.

I can't be bothered to look right now since I'm at work, but I may have some fun with this later. In the meantime, post any crazy combinations you think of, with bonus points for finding that it really exists.

Re: Rule 34 for conspiracy theories?

Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 7:35 pm UTC
by philsov
I... don't think that's an example of rule 34.

Anyways -- the "inside job" of 9/11, if you know what I mean and I think you do.

Re: Rule 34 for conspiracy theories?

Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 7:38 pm UTC
by jasc15
Well, I know what Rule 34 is. I'm applying the concept to something else.

However, I like your combination of my made up version with the classical one.

Re: Rule 34 for conspiracy theories?

Posted: Sat Nov 09, 2013 5:47 am UTC
by SecondTalon
...yeah, that's not how Rule 34 works. It's not a vague concept of "Wacky things exist" but a very specific statement of the creativity of sexual stimulation.

At any rate the Kennedy Assassination was so Oswald could show the world his O face. Which he did, but also happened to get shot right at the moment of completion, so....

Re: Rule 34 for conspiracy theories?

Posted: Mon Nov 11, 2013 6:05 am UTC
by teelo
I hereby call Rule 34 on how 9/11 was an inside job:


Re: Rule 34 for conspiracy theories?

Posted: Mon Nov 11, 2013 4:10 pm UTC
by geghoktithvys
Given that the Twin Towers clearly were phallic symbols, I suppose it wouldn't be too hard to produce an erotic backstory for their destruction.

Re: Rule 34 for conspiracy theories?

Posted: Wed Dec 04, 2013 11:25 pm UTC
by Murrin
Jasc obviously means that if you can think of a conspiracy theory, it exists as a porn scenario somewhere. Duh.

Re: Rule 34 for conspiracy theories?

Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2013 12:41 am UTC
by Lopsidation
Regarding what the OP originally intended, I can't help but think of the funniest short story I've ever read. How many conspiracy theories can one person possibly combine?

Re: Rule 34 for conspiracy theories?

Posted: Tue Dec 10, 2013 4:02 am UTC
by addams
Rule 34 is a very useful rule.
It loses some of its usefulness or clarity when exchanged freely with conspiracy theories.

Don't let that stop you. This is the internet and we are all Humpty-Dumptys.
Humpty-Dumpty said, "When I use a word it means, exactly what I want it to means. Nothing more and nothing less." ... y_theories
Mix and match, at will.

It might be fun to bring conspiracy theories from 'out there' to in here.
A young woman hit me with four in fifteen minutes.
1. Obama is giving guns to our enemies.
2. Obama is taking guns away from Americans.
3. They, the government, have Alien (points up) technology.
4. They let us have telephones so that 'They' can track us.

She is Real! And; She is Normal!
They think I am weird.

yes. They. She is a member of a larger group of both blood relatives and friends.
They believe, too. Each one has their own take on things. The basics are fairly consistent within the group.

Many members of the larger community echo these 'Truths'.
Some agree, then jump off into proofs. "Obama is Black. You know what that means. right?"

The stupid conspiracy theories are so flashy and shocking, a real story does not stand a chance.

Re: Rule 34 for conspiracy theories?

Posted: Thu Dec 19, 2013 10:05 pm UTC
by lgw
I delight in occasionally re-reading the Illuminatus trilogy (literary train-wreck that it is), because it exists mostly to mock conspiracy theories, and also to be a sort of therapy for those addicted to them. While it's harder to see those elements now if you weren't of age in the 60s, almost every element of the books was drawn from the conspiracy mindset: most of the characters were real people, or at least shared the names of real people from conspiracy-inspiring newspaper articles, and most of the secret societies and plot elements were taken from the conspiracy lore of the time. If there's a central theme to that mess of a trilogy, it's "the human mind is better at finding connections and patterns than the universe is at producing them, especially if you've smoked entirely too much weed."

Re: Rule 34 for conspiracy theories?

Posted: Thu Dec 19, 2013 10:39 pm UTC
by addams
Thank you. ... ot_summary

They were playing an internet game without the internet?
From the article:
They had a lot of access to research staff. And so under the guise that it would be helpful writing articles for Playboy (I don't think it was really) they got into the Illuminati. Wilson would bung these memos to Shea as material came in from the researchers—like the memos in the book. When they got to memo 23, Shea said, "If we imagine a New York cop came across these memos, I think we've got the basis for a fine thriller!" So the next one Wilson wrote was episode one of the thriller. Shea replied with episode two. They were playing a game really. Like, I bet you can't continue this! The answer is, "No I can't, so we'll continue with this!"[7]

And! People Bought Those Books!
People repeated the stories to one another
and now We Are Living The Dream!

Like War of the Worlds. ... adio_drama)#Public_reaction

FOX News is mostly conspiracy theories.
They are like the Onion. Only, not well written.

FOX says 'They' are out to 'Get' Santa.
That is important information for the American Public.

The National BroadCast System must be able to reach a majority of people with one message.
That is the way National BroadCast Systems work. Ours keeps us Alert to danger.

I am not too worried about 'Them' 'getting' Santa. I don't like him.
Rule 34? Santa already has tons of Porn. shh. Don't tell Mrs. Clause.