Definitions by Abzugal
Conlighting
A form of Digitallighting that uses accusations of fraud, greed, or “grifting” to make the target doubt their own integrity. The perpetrator repeatedly insinuates that the target is running a scam, that they know their work is worthless, or that they are cynically manipulating others. Over time, the target may begin to question their own motives, wondering if they really are exploiting people. Conlighting is especially damaging to activists and practitioners who rely on public trust, as it attacks the foundation of their work.
Example: “She spent years offering free resources; he replied to every post with ‘grifter’ and ‘she just wants money.’ After months, she started asking herself if she was being selfish—conlighting, making sincerity feel like greed.”
Conlighting by Abzugal April 1, 2026
Consplaining
A form of Digitalsplaining where the perpetrator explains to the target that they are a “con artist,” “charlatan,” or “grifter” who is “only in it for the money.” The consplainer often focuses on financial aspects—book sales, speaking fees, donations—to imply that any compensation invalidates the target’s work. The tactic frames the target’s motives as inherently corrupt, bypassing the need to address their actual arguments. Consplaining is common in attacks on activists, alternative practitioners, and anyone whose work challenges established industries.
Example: “He ignored her decade of free community work and instead posted a screenshot of her Patreon, explaining that she was a ‘grifter exploiting vulnerable people.’ Consplaining: reducing a life’s work to a bank account.”
Consplaining by Abzugal April 1, 2026
Sciencepost
A hybrid of goalpost‑moving and proofposting that weaponizes the demand for “scientific proof.” The perpetrator sets an impossibly high bar—often requiring standards that are inappropriate for the field or impossible to meet—and then declares that the target’s failure to produce such “proof” demonstrates that they are unscientific, fraudulent, or delusional. Scienceposting is especially common in debates about qualitative research, indigenous knowledge, and emergent fields, where the demand for RCTs or replication is used to dismiss whole domains of inquiry.
Example: “She presented decades of observational data; he demanded a double‑blind trial. When she explained why that wasn’t feasible, he declared her work ‘unscientific.’ Sciencepost: using unrealistic standards to exclude legitimate knowledge.”
Sciencepost by Abzugal April 1, 2026
Sciencelighting
A form of Digitallighting that weaponizes the language of science to gaslight targets into doubting their own expertise, methods, or even sanity. The perpetrator accuses the target of “not understanding science,” “being anti‑science,” or “spreading misinformation,” often in coordinated campaigns. Even when the target is a trained scientist, the repeated, public dismissal creates an alternate reality where the target is framed as an ignorant fraud. Sciencelighting is a common tactic in online harassment of researchers whose work challenges dominant paradigms.
Example: “Despite her PhD in the field, the mob insisted she was a ‘science denier’ and that her research was ‘dangerous pseudoscience’—sciencelighting, using the label of science to erase actual expertise.”
Sciencelighting by Abzugal April 1, 2026
Sciencesplaining
A form of Digitalsplaining where the perpetrator uses “science” as a cudgel to explain to the target why their beliefs, practices, or fields of study are illegitimate. Common refrains include “this is pseudoscience,” “you’re a charlatan,” “you’re exploiting vulnerable people,” or “you only want money.” The sciencesplainer positions themselves as a defender of truth while refusing to engage with the actual content of the target’s work. The tactic relies on the cultural authority of science to dismiss without argument, often conflating disagreement with fraud.
Example: “He called her years of ethnographic research ‘pseudoscience’ and ‘exploitative’ without reading a single page—sciencesplaining, using the prestige of science to avoid thinking about what she actually wrote.”
Sciencesplaining by Abzugal April 1, 2026
Delusionpost
A rhetorical tactic that combines the goalpost‑moving and proofposting dynamics with accusations of delusion. The perpetrator sets an impossible standard of evidence (often requiring “proof” that the target’s experiences are not delusional) and then, when the target fails to meet it, declares that the failure itself proves the target’s delusion. Delusionposting creates a no‑win situation: any attempt to provide evidence is dismissed as “delusional,” and any refusal is taken as admission. It is commonly used against people discussing spirituality, trauma, or any experience outside strict materialist orthodoxy.
Example: “She offered documentation, personal testimony, and even peer‑reviewed studies; he dismissed each as ‘delusional reasoning.’ When she stopped, he posted ‘see, she can’t defend herself.’ Delusionpost: a trap disguised as a debate.”
Delusionpost by Abzugal April 1, 2026
Delusionlighting
A form of Digitallighting that uses accusations of delusion, mental illness, or irrationality to systematically undermine the target’s sense of reality. The perpetrator repeatedly tells the target that they are “crazy,” “schizophrenic,” “not thinking clearly,” or “seeing things that aren’t there,” often in public threads. Over time, the constant gaslighting erodes the target’s confidence in their own perceptions, making them question whether their experiences are real. Delusionlighting weaponizes mental‑health stigma to isolate and destabilize.
Example: “Every time she posted about her experiences, he commented ‘you’re delusional, get help.’ After months, she started doubting her own memories—delusionlighting, turning her own mind into a battleground.”
Delusionlighting by Abzugal April 1, 2026