Ask Lemmy

26654 readers

1108 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Rules: (interactive)

1) Be nice and; have fun

Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them

2) All posts must end with a '?'

This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?

3) No spam

Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.

4) NSFW is okay, within reason

Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected]. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].

5) This is not a support community.

It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.

Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

AsudoxDev

118

What is your favorite inconsequential fan theory? (lemmy.world)

submitted 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

113 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I'm talking about a fan theory, that if true doesn't drastically upend the fundamentals of the fiction it is set in.

Mine is that in the American Dad episode 'Can I Be Frank With You', that Snot's uncle is actually just another Roger persona. He appears suddenly and conveniently to pitch a bizarre scheme, he loves hanging around with teen boys and doing drugs, and the very instant that the plan has a setback he kills himself out of sight of everyone else. That's just Roger in a suit and glasses.

Edit: Ok, so, people are having trouble with the word "inconsequential".

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 20 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Sisko was killed in TNG's universe. Sisko survived in DS9's universe due to the prophets saving him. The Trek universe diverged at Wolf 359.

The Dominion War has drastically different outcomes. Existential crisis in one universe where Sisko does a lot of meddling; barely mentioned in the other.

The biggest change to the cast is that Worf marries Jadzia Dax and becomes Ambassador to the Klingon Empire in one universe; in the other universe, he does a brief inconsequential stint at DS9 (without Sisko), never marries, then returns to the Enterprise E as pretty much the same character from TNG, and at some later point, he gets the Enterprise E destroyed.

The Picard timeline is set in the universe where Sisko died at Wolf 359.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Fascinating, but I’m not buying it.

Still, well formed and fascinating.

Edit: this makes sense if you played Star Trek Online, and I’ll give OP a break for that, but most of the crazy stuff that would have supported this theory 6 years ago has been ironed-out in-canon. Even if it wasn’t done well.

Still, I really enjoyed the alt history version!