Definitions by Abzugal
Fallacy of Invisible Convincing
The fallacy of assuming that it's possible to convince or argue with anyone about anything—even the most absurd, unacceptable, or monstrous positions—through sufficient rationality, evidence, and persuasion. The fallacy ignores that some positions are not reached through reason and cannot be dislodged by it. You cannot argue someone out of a position they didn't argue themselves into. The defender of slavery, the apologist for genocide, the advocate of racist policies—these are not positions that yield to evidence because they were not based on evidence. The Fallacy of Invisible Convincing is beloved of those who believe that all disagreement is misunderstanding, that all conflict can be resolved through dialogue, that the only problem is insufficient communication. It's a noble fallacy, but a fallacy nonetheless.
Example: "He spent years trying to convince his racist uncle that racism was wrong—studies, arguments, personal stories, everything. Nothing worked. The Fallacy of Invisible Convincing had promised that reason would prevail; reason didn't. Some positions are not reachable by argument because they were not reached by argument. He finally understood: you can't reason someone out of something they didn't reason themselves into."
Fallacy of Invisible Convincing by Abzugal February 21, 2026
Power Paradigms
The theory that whoever holds power determines not just policies but paradigms—the very frameworks through which reality is understood. Power Paradigms argues that truth, logic, science, and reality itself are shaped by those who control institutions, resources, and discourse. The powerful don't just dominate the world; they dominate the terms by which the world is understood. Paradigms shift not when evidence accumulates but when power shifts—when new groups gain the ability to define what counts as knowledge, what counts as reasonable, what counts as real. Power Paradigms explains why history is written by the victors, why certain knowledge is marginalized, why some truths are unspeakable. It's the theory that reality has a ruling class.
Example: "He used to think science was pure, objective, above politics. Then he learned about Power Paradigms—how funding shapes research, how institutions control publication, how those with power determine what counts as knowledge. Science wasn't corrupted; it was always political. The question wasn't whether power influenced knowledge, but whose power, and toward what ends."
Power Paradigms by Abzugal February 21, 2026
Absolutist Fallacy
The belief that one possesses absolute, objective truth and that everyone who disagrees is simply wrong—not differently situated, not operating from different premises, not seeing a different aspect of reality, but simply, absolutely wrong. The Absolutist Fallacy is objectivity bias taken to its logical extreme: not just believing you're right, but believing that rightness is a property you possess and others lack. It's the fallacy of the true believer, the ideologue, the person who has never encountered a perspective that challenged their own and survived the encounter intact. Absolutist Fallacy makes dialogue impossible because there's nothing to discuss—you have the truth; they have error. The only question is how to correct them.
Example: "He didn't argue; he declared. Every conversation was a lecture, every disagreement a sign of the other person's confusion. Absolutist Fallacy meant he possessed truth; everyone else was just wrong. When she tried to offer a different perspective, he didn't engage—he corrected. There was nothing to discuss because discussion implies uncertainty, and he had none."
Absolutist Fallacy by Abzugal February 21, 2026
Fallacy of the Absolute Exception
A fallacy that uses an extreme, often hypothetical exception to dismiss a general rule or pattern. "There are exceptions, therefore the rule is invalid." The fallacy treats the existence of any counterexample—no matter how rare, how marginal, how irrelevant—as proof that a generalization is worthless. It's the logic of "some smokers live to 100, so smoking doesn't cause cancer," of "one minority succeeded, so discrimination doesn't exist." The Fallacy of the Absolute Exception is beloved of those who want to deny patterns they find inconvenient, who would rather focus on the exception than address the rule. It ignores that generalizations describe tendencies, not absolutes, and that exceptions prove the rule only in the sense of testing it—not disproving it.
Example: "She presented decades of data showing systemic racism. He responded with the Fallacy of the Absolute Exception: 'But my Black friend made it, so it's not systemic.' One exception, one data point, used to dismiss mountains of evidence. The rule didn't matter; the exception was all he needed. The fallacy had done its work: making the systemic invisible."
Fallacy of the Absolute Exception by Abzugal February 21, 2026
Fallacy of the Relative Exception (Fallacy of "All Other Alternatives Are Worse")
A fallacy that defends a flawed position by comparing it to even worse alternatives, without ever addressing the flaws themselves. "Sure, our healthcare system is broken, but at least it's not as bad as Country X." The fallacy doesn't solve the problem; it just points to someone else's greater problems as a reason to accept one's own. This is the logical skeleton of the "lesser evil" argument, of "it could be worse," of every defense of the status quo that never actually defends the status quo—it just points to something worse. The fallacy ignores that the existence of worse alternatives does not make a bad alternative good, and that the goal should be improvement, not comparison. It's the favorite fallacy of those who benefit from things staying exactly as they are.
Fallacy of the Relative Exception (Fallacy of "All Other Alternatives Are Worse") Example: "She pointed out the corruption, the inequality, the failing infrastructure. He responded with the Fallacy of the Relative Exception: 'But look at Country Y—they have it so much worse.' The problems she listed remained unaddressed, unsolved, untouched. The existence of somewhere worse was supposed to make her somewhere better. It didn't."
Catalytic Accelerationism
A moderate form of accelerationism focused on collapsing an entire system through a single, decisive catalyst or cataclysm—rather than the gradual erosion of classical accelerationism or the targeted process-acceleration of catalystism. Where classical accelerationism advocates letting systems decay naturally over time, and catalystism seeks to accelerate specific processes within systems, catalytic accelerationism aims for the big bang: one well-placed spark that brings the whole structure down at once. It's the difference between waiting for a building to crumble (classical), speeding up its decay (catalystism), and placing explosives at key structural points (catalytic). Catalytic accelerationists study systems for their single point of failure—the one trigger that, if pulled, collapses everything. They're often found in online political communities, both pro-Western and anti-Western, dreaming of the moment when their chosen catalyst—an election, a crisis, a revelation—will finally bring the whole edifice crashing down.
Catalytic Accelerationism Example: "He didn't want to wait for the system to fail naturally, nor did he just want to speed up individual processes. He wanted the whole thing to fall, now, in one glorious collapse. So he studied the system for its single point of failure—the one trigger that would bring it all down. When he thought he'd found it, he became a catalytic accelerationist: waiting, watching, ready to apply the catalyst that would end it all. Whether he was right or wrong, no one would know until the moment came—or didn't."
Catalytic Accelerationism by Abzugal February 19, 2026
Catalystism
A moderate form of accelerationism focused on provoking a single, specific reaction in order to accelerate a particular process—rather than the classical accelerationist goal of collapsing entire systems. Where classical accelerationism seeks total societal breakdown as a path to rebirth, catalystism is surgical: identify a process, find its bottleneck, and provoke the reaction that breaks the logjam. It's the difference between burning down the factory to rebuild it (classical) and pouring a chemical into a stuck valve to make it open (catalystism). Catalystism is especially common among online political groups, both pro-Western and anti-Western, who seek to hasten electoral outcomes, policy changes, or social shifts through targeted provocations. The catalystist doesn't want the whole system to fall; they just want this particular thing to happen faster. They're playing with fire, but carefully—they hope.
Example: "He didn't want the whole political system to collapse; he just wanted his party's candidate to win the primary. So he engaged in catalystism: spreading just enough controversy about the frontrunner to provoke a backlash that would consolidate support around his candidate. The process worked—the frontrunner stumbled, his candidate surged. Catalystism had accelerated the outcome without burning everything down. He felt clever, and he was—for now. Catalystism is safe until it isn't."
Catalystism by Abzugal February 19, 2026