Definitions by Abzugal

Conlighting

A Digitallighting tactic that accuses the target of being a “charlatan,” “con artist,” or “fraud,” often based solely on their beliefs, practices, or experiences. Conlighting is frequently paired with prooflighting and psycholighting: the perpetrator demands impossible evidence of sincerity or efficacy, then uses the target’s failure to meet those demands as “proof” that they are intentionally deceiving others. It is especially common against spiritual practitioners, alternative healers, and anyone whose worldview falls outside strict scientific materialism. Conlighting weaponizes suspicion to destroy credibility.

Example: “She offered free guided meditations; he called her a con artist exploiting the vulnerable. When she asked how, he said ‘real meditation doesn’t need guides.’ Conlighting: labeling someone a fraud because you don’t share their practice.”

Conlighting by Abzugal March 31, 2026

Prooflighting

A Digitallighting tactic where the perpetrator demands impossible or absurd levels of proof, often with the goal of exhausting, humiliating, or psycholighting the target. The prooflighter asks for sources, then declares them insufficient, moves goalposts, demands ever‑more stringent evidence, and finally uses the target’s inability to meet impossible standards as “proof” that the target is irrational, dishonest, or mentally unstable. It is a common companion to psycholighting and conlighting, turning the legitimate value of evidence into a weapon of attrition.

Example: “He said he had dreams of his personal deity; she demanded proof. He described them; she said dreams aren’t proof. He offered cultural context; she said that’s not scientific. Prooflighting: moving goalposts until the target gives up, then declaring victory.”

Prooflighting by Abzugal March 31, 2026

Psycholighting

A form of Digitallighting that weaponizes mental health language to destabilize and discredit a target. The perpetrator questions the target’s sanity, often simply for holding beliefs or expressing experiences that deviate from the perpetrator’s worldview. They persistently imply that the target is “mentally unstable,” “delusional,” “needs help,” or “should see a psychiatrist,” regardless of the target’s actual mental state. Psycholighting often follows a pattern: the target shares a personal experience (e.g., spiritual insight, unusual perception); the perpetrator responds with mock concern (“are you okay?”) then escalates to armchair diagnosis; finally, they use the target’s defensive reaction as “proof” of instability. It is especially common in debates about religion, spirituality, and unconventional experiences.

Example: “When she posted about her meditation experiences in a spiritual subreddit, a neo‑atheist replied questioning her sanity, then disagreed with everything she said, then suggested she was schizophrenic. Psycholighting: using mental health as a cudgel against difference.”

Psycholighting by Abzugal March 31, 2026

Theory of Digital Dissociation

A framework describing how individuals can experience a split between their online and offline selves—not as a disorder but as a common coping mechanism in a hyperconnected world. Digital dissociation allows people to compartmentalize identities, emotions, and behaviors across different platforms, servers, or accounts. It can be protective (separating work life from fandom) or pathological (losing track of which self is “real”). The theory explores how the fragmented architecture of digital life encourages fractured identity, and how constant context‑switching can lead to a sense of being decentered or untethered.

Example: “She had one persona for her professional LinkedIn, another for her activist Twitter, and a third for her gaming Discord—theory of digital dissociation, where the self becomes a portfolio of avatars.”

Theory of Digital Dissociation by Abzugal March 31, 2026

Logical Perspectivism Theory

A meta‑logical framework proposing that logical systems themselves are perspectives on reasoning, not windows into a single timeless truth. Different logical frameworks (classical, intuitionistic, paraconsistent, etc.) offer different ways of structuring inference, each revealing certain patterns while obscuring others. Logical perspectivism holds that there is no “view from nowhere” in logic; every logical system is situated, reflecting the purposes, metaphysical assumptions, and cultural contexts of its developers. The theory encourages humility about one’s preferred logic and openness to alternative systems that may be better suited to different domains or problems.

Example: “His logical perspectivism theory meant he didn’t dismiss Buddhist logic as ‘irrational’—he saw it as a different perspective on reasoning, valid for its domain.”

Logical Perspectivism Theory by Abzugal March 31, 2026

Logical Contextualism Theory

A meta‑logical framework asserting that the validity and appropriateness of logical rules depend on the context of inquiry. There is no single, universal logic that applies to all domains; instead, different contexts call for different logical tools. Classical logic works for mathematics, but paraconsistent logic may be needed for inconsistent databases; intuitionistic logic suits constructive mathematics; modal logic handles necessity and possibility. The theory rejects logical monism—the idea that one logic rules all—in favor of logical pluralism grounded in context. It demands that reasoners choose their logical framework based on the problem, not out of habit or ideology.

Example: “When the database contained conflicting records, his logical contextualism theory led him to paraconsistent logic rather than trying to force consistency where none existed.”

Logical Contextualism Theory by Abzugal March 31, 2026

Hegemonormativism

A variant of officionormativism that centers specifically on hegemonic discourses—the dominant cultural, political, and intellectual frameworks that hold power in a given society. The hegemonormativist treats whatever is mainstream, widely accepted, or institutionally powerful as automatically correct, and views any challenge to hegemony as irrational or deviant. This bias operates across domains: political orthodoxy, cultural norms, academic paradigms, and media narratives. It naturalizes existing power structures by equating dominance with truth, making it difficult to even conceive of alternatives. Hegemonormativism is the comfortable default of those who never question the air they breathe.

Example: “She never questioned capitalism, liberal democracy, or the mainstream media—hegemonormativism had made the dominant order feel like reality itself.”

Hegemonormativism by Abzugal March 31, 2026