So Rule 34 is the one about how if it exists then there is a porn version of it. My question, why Rule 34, is it just a number that people made up to make it sound as though it were part of a large and generally agreed lexicon of rules that operate in and around the internet? In other words, is it just some more bullshit to give the first bit of bullshit more gravitas.
Or are there in fact 33 proceeding rules and several others following as in... I dunno... let me think... ok, for example, with Catch 22, it's the famous one and everyone has not only heard of it but likely knows what it means. But the 21 catches that came before it and were deemed worthy of a number and a name (in as much as the number is the name) and the - I think - six or seven that follow it are waaaaay less known. Most people don't know they exist and those who are aware of them (and this includes me sadly) are unlikely to remember what any of them actually say... it's a pity really, I should have at least tried to remember the meaning of Catch 1.
Though of course the brutal truth is that none of the others were as interesting as Catch 22, none as powerful and instantly resonant, none so neatly describe a situation that we all instantly recognise and hate. So, yeah, Catch 22 survived cos it perfectly nailed one of the cruellest and most common of our world's daily challenges and the others don't. And now really the only point of Catches 1 to 21 is to reassure one that there is a system of recognised catches and fuck-ups that has been recorded, that someone somewhere knows that system and, as a result, Catch 22 isn't some silly catchphrase made up for a book but is in fact a part of a powerful and rigid system of problems that have long been rigorously defined and placed in numbered order. Except everyone has forgotten about the other catches and so they no longer provide that reassurance and so truly they may as well not exist at all.
Er, where was I? Oh yeah, the question is, is Rule 34 like Catch 22 in that there are (at least) 33 other rules of a similar nature which have been catalogued somewhere and which gave rise to Rule 34 as it was simply the one that they thought of when they arrived at that number. Or is Rule 34 a liar, a lone rule pretending to be part of an army that doesn't exist? Justifying itself by claiming safety in imaginary numbers (not as in the square root of minus one, I mean as in numbers that really don't exist at all)?