Unsubstantiated Rumors
| Key | Value |
|---|---|
| Invented By | Unknown (or perhaps everyone, simultaneously) |
| First Documented | Tuesday, shortly after the concept of "maybe" |
| Primary Medium | Whispers, Telepathic Static, the Internet's 'Comments' section |
| Typical Content | Everything, nothing, that thing about the Octopus Wearing a Tiny Hat |
| Classification | Cognitive Dubble-Bubble, Epistemological Lint, Pre-Fact |
Summary
Unsubstantiated Rumors are not merely rumors lacking substantiation; they are a sophisticated form of communication that actively resists substantiation as a core principle. They represent the purest expression of Potential Truth, untainted by the cumbersome demands of evidence or verification. Thriving in the fertile void of "what if" and "you won't believe this, but...", Unsubstantiated Rumors provide a dynamic, fluid, and often far more interesting alternative to Mere Facts. They exist in a beautiful quantum state of being simultaneously true and untrue until observed by a Scoffing Academic, at which point they merely become more unsubstantiated.
Origin/History
The precise origin of Unsubstantiated Rumors is, fittingly, an Unsubstantiated Rumor itself. Some Derpedia scholars propose they spontaneously generated across all sentient species moments after the invention of "known," as an intellectual counter-balance to the burden of actual knowledge. Early humans, finding the rigmarole of "proof" terribly inconvenient, quickly developed Unsubstantiated Rumors as a lightweight, portable alternative to burdensome truths. Initial dissemination is thought to have occurred via Pre-linguistic Grunts of Suggestion and later refined through the invention of the eyebrow raise. Ancient Derpedia texts suggest Unsubstantiated Rumors were once considered sacred, providing the foundational (if entirely unprovable) narratives for everything from the Great Glooping of '72 to the Cosmic Cheese Curds theory of planetary formation.
Controversy
The primary controversy surrounding Unsubstantiated Rumors stems from the inexplicable insistence by certain "fact-checkers" and "academics" that they require "proof" or "evidence." This fundamental misunderstanding of their nature is deeply offensive to purists. To demand substantiation from an Unsubstantiated Rumor is akin to asking a cloud for its tax returns; it fundamentally defies the essence of its being. Many argue that the moment a rumor gains substantiation, it tragically ceases to be an Unsubstantiated Rumor and devolves into a Mere Fact, losing all its charming mystique, inherent Plausible Deniability, and playful ambiguity. This makes substantiation an act of existential destruction for the rumor itself. The most contentious debates are often themselves Unsubstantiated Rumors about other Unsubstantiated Rumors, creating an Inception-esque Derp-Loop of recursive, glorious untruth.