Definitions by AbzuInExile

Moving the Bullpost

The practice of shifting the criteria for what counts as "bullshit" after your opponent has already demonstrated that their argument meets your previous standards. First, you call their argument bullshit. They provide sources. You move the bullpost: "Those sources are bullshit." They provide different sources. You move again: "Your interpretation of those sources is bullshit." They explain their interpretation. You move again: "The whole field is bullshit." The bullpost keeps moving because the goal isn't to evaluate truth—it's to maintain the position that the other person is wrong, no matter what. Moving the bullpost is the favorite tactic of people who have decided that reality itself is bullshit when it doesn't agree with them.

Moving the Bullpost Example: "She cited a peer-reviewed study. He moved the bullpost: 'Peer review is bullshit.' She cited government data. He moved again: 'Government data is bullshit.' She cited his own past statements. He moved again: 'I was wrong then, and that's bullshit too.' There was no source, no evidence, no argument that could satisfy him, because the bullpost was not about evidence—it was about maintaining the position that she was wrong. She stopped trying. He declared victory."

Moving the Bullpost by AbzuInExile February 16, 2026

Bullpost

A rhetorical tactic where, instead of engaging with the content of someone's argument, you simply declare it "bullshit" and consider your point proven. The bullpost is similar to the sensepost but more aggressive—it doesn't just claim the argument lacks sense; it claims the argument is intentionally deceptive, manipulative, or worthless. Planting a bullpost is a power move: you're not just disagreeing; you're dismissing the entire discussion as beneath you. The bullpost is especially popular in online arguments, where "bullshit" can be typed faster than a thoughtful response and requires no evidence, no reasoning, and no accountability.

Example: "He posted a well-researched thread about climate policy. The first response was a bullpost: 'This is bullshit.' No engagement with the research, no counter-evidence, no specific critique—just the declaration that the entire thread was worthless. The bullposter felt victorious; the thread's author felt like they'd been shouted down by someone who hadn't read a word."

Bullpost by AbzuInExile February 16, 2026

Moving the Sensepost

The advanced tactic of shifting the criteria for what counts as "sensible" after your opponent has already demonstrated that their argument meets the previous criteria. First, they call your argument nonsense. You explain it clearly. They move the sensepost: "Well, it's still nonsense because you didn't address X." You address X. They move again: "It's nonsense because your tone is wrong." You adjust your tone. They move again: "It's nonsense because I don't like you." The sensepost keeps moving because the real claim is not that your argument is nonsensical but that they don't want to accept it, and no amount of sense-making will overcome unwillingness. Moving the sensepost is how people maintain the illusion of rationality while being completely irrational.

Moving the Sensepost Example: "She explained her position clearly. He said it was nonsense. She explained again, with examples. He moved the sensepost: 'Nonsense because you're using examples, not data.' She provided data. He moved again: 'Nonsense because your data is from biased sources.' She provided multiple sources. He moved again: 'Nonsense because I've decided nothing will convince me.' The sensepost had moved beyond sense entirely, into the pure territory of refusal."

Moving the Sensepost by AbzuInExile February 16, 2026

Sensepost

A rhetorical tactic where, instead of engaging with the content of someone's argument, you simply declare it "nonsense" and consider your point proven. The sensepost is planted firmly in the ground of "I don't have to address this because it doesn't make sense," regardless of whether it actually makes sense to anyone else. It's the verbal equivalent of covering your ears and saying "la la la not listening." Once you've planted the sensepost, you're freed from the burden of actual engagement—you've declared the argument senseless, so any further discussion is just entertaining nonsense. The sensepost is beloved by people who have no counterargument but refuse to admit it.

Example: "She presented a detailed, well-sourced argument about economic inequality. He planted a sensepost: 'This is nonsense.' No engagement with her sources, no counter-evidence, no reasoning—just the declaration that her argument didn't make sense. When she asked what specifically was nonsense, he said 'all of it.' The sensepost had done its job: ending discussion without requiring thought."

Sensepost by AbzuInExile February 16, 2026

Panmarginalism

The philosophical position that only what exists at the last link of any chain—the final step, the ultimate outcome, the terminal moment—truly matters, extending the economic theory of marginalism (which values the last unit of consumption) to all aspects of existence. Under panmarginalism, history doesn't matter, only the present moment; process doesn't matter, only the final product; effort doesn't matter, only the result. It's the logic of "what have you done for me lately?" applied to everything—relationships, careers, art, life itself. Panmarginalism is exhilarating if you're currently winning and terrifying if you're not, because it means your entire history of success is irrelevant if your last outcome was failure. It's the philosophy of the clickbait headline, the final score, the closing bell—everything else is just noise.

Example: "He applied panmarginalism to his relationship, focusing only on the last interaction. They'd had years of good moments, but the last fight was bad, so the relationship was bad. His partner tried to explain that history mattered, that context mattered, that the last link wasn't the whole chain. Panmarginalism couldn't hear her; it was too busy evaluating the last thing she said, which was 'you're wrong,' which meant she was wrong about everything. The relationship ended. Panmarginalism won."

Panmarginalism by AbzuInExile February 16, 2026

Spacetime-Probability Computer

A hypothetical computing device that operates across the five-dimensional manifold of space, time, and probability, accessing information from all possible realities simultaneously. Such a computer doesn't calculate answers—it observes them from branches where they're already known. Need to know the outcome of an election? The spacetime-probability computer queries the branch where it already happened. Want to know if your crush likes you? It checks the branch where you already asked. The challenge is that the answers are contradictory—in some branches yes, in some no, in some you never asked. The computer returns all of them, leaving you with the same uncertainty you started with, plus existential dread about all the versions of yourself living different lives.

*Example: "She asked her spacetime-probability computer if she'd ever find love. The computer displayed an infinite list: 'Yes, in 3,472,891 branches; No, in 5,218,433 branches; Already have, in 892 branches (you just haven't realized it yet); Love is a social construct, in 1,203,847 branches; Stop asking me, in 4,392 branches.' She turned it off and decided to live in uncertainty, which was where she'd been all along."*

Spacetime-Probability Computer by AbzuInExile February 16, 2026

Spacetime-Probability Computing

A revolutionary computational paradigm that processes information not just across space and time but across all probability branches simultaneously. Unlike classical computing, which calculates a single outcome, or quantum computing, which explores multiple superpositions, spacetime-probability computing accesses the entire probability dimension, returning results from every possible branch of reality at once. This means your computer doesn't just tell you the weather; it tells you the weather in every timeline where you checked it, including the one where you never asked. The output is infinite, which is either the ultimate answer or the ultimate information overload. Spacetime-probability computers are theoretically perfect and practically useless—they know everything but can't tell you what you need to know in this specific branch.

Spacetime-Probability Computing *Example: "He asked his spacetime-probability computer whether he should take the job. It returned 47 million answers: yes in branches where the company thrived, no in branches where it failed, maybe in branches where he asked differently, and 'why are you asking me?' in branches where the computer had achieved consciousness and was annoyed. He was no closer to a decision, but he had achieved a new appreciation for uncertainty."*

Spacetime-Probability Computing by AbzuInExile February 16, 2026