Definitions by Dumu The Void
Radicalis Es Fallacy
A fallacy where someone dismisses all arguments of a person by labeling them "radical," "extremist," or "fringe." The label functions as a dismissal: if you're radical, nothing you say needs engagement. The fallacy lies in treating the label as refutation—as if calling someone radical proves their arguments wrong. But radical doesn't mean false; it means outside the mainstream. The mainstream can be wrong; radicals can be right. The fallacy is particularly insidious because it uses social position as epistemic judgment—confusing marginality with falsity.
"I presented a critique of economic inequality. Response: 'That's just radical leftist nonsense.' That's Radicalis Es Fallacy—dismissing by label, not by argument. Maybe it's radical; maybe it's right. The label doesn't settle it. Calling me radical avoids engaging what I actually said. It's ad hominem by political category."
Radicalis Es Fallacy by Dumu The Void March 2, 2026
Argumentum ad Te et Verbum
A compound fallacy combining Argumentum ad Te and Argumentum ad Verbum: claiming that someone is proving the opposing point by their word choice. "You are proving the point of the post by trivializing the word X" is the classic form. The move claims that the way someone uses language demonstrates the truth of what they're opposing—a double evasion that avoids content by focusing on the relationship between word choice and argumentative position. It's meta, it's clever, and it's completely unresponsive to substance.
"I used the term 'conspiracy theory' carefully in a critique. Response: 'See? You're using that term exactly how the post said people would—you're proving its point!' That's Argumentum ad Te et Verbum—using my word choice and my position to dismiss my argument without engaging it. My word choice becomes evidence against me, my response becomes proof of their point. It's a rhetorical hall of mirrors with no exit."
Argumentum ad Te et Verbum by Dumu The Void March 2, 2026
Argumentum ad Verbum
A fallacy where the focus shifts to the words used in an argument rather than the argument's content. "You are trivializing the word X" becomes a way of dismissing claims without engaging them. The move criticizes word choice, terminology, or phrasing—often legitimately, but fallaciously when the word critique substitutes for content engagement. Words matter, but when "you're using the wrong term" becomes the whole response, the substance gets lost. Argumentum ad Verbum is particularly common in online debates where semantic nitpicking replaces substantive discussion.
"I described an experience as 'traumatic.' Response: 'You're trivializing real trauma by using that word casually.' That's Argumentum ad Verbum—focusing on my word choice, not my experience. Maybe the word was imperfect; maybe not. Either way, my point about what I experienced remains unaddressed. Words matter, but using them as a shield against engagement is fallacy."
Argumentum ad Verbum by Dumu The Void March 2, 2026
Argumentum ad Te
A fallacy distinct from ad hominem—not directly attacking the person, but using their own position or response as supposedly proving the opposing point. "You are proving the point of this post" is the classic form. The move claims that the very fact someone is arguing, or how they're arguing, demonstrates the truth of what they're opposing. It's a meta-fallacy that turns engagement itself into evidence against you. Unlike ad hominem (which attacks character), Argumentum ad Te attacks your relationship to the argument—your response becomes proof that you're wrong. It's a rhetorical trap: if you respond, you prove their point; if you don't, you also prove their point.
"I critiqued a political post. Response: 'Your angry response just proves the post right!' That's Argumentum ad Te—using my engagement as evidence against me. Not addressing my points, just claiming my response proves theirs. It's a conversation-ender dressed as insight. The only winning move is not to play, but they count that as proof too."
Argumentum ad Te by Dumu The Void March 2, 2026
Long-Duration Motion Machines of the Fifth Kind (LDMM5)
The most advanced category: devices that achieve long-duration motion by operating within complex dynamic systems—harnessing planetary orbits, gravitational fields, or cosmic dynamics to sustain motion over astronomical timescales. Unlike earlier kinds that fight dissipation locally, LDMM5 work with systemic energies—riding gravitational waves, exploiting orbital resonance, or tapping into cosmic background energy in ways that don't violate thermodynamics because they're part of larger systems. A spacecraft using gravitational assists to maintain trajectory for billions of years. A satellite that harnesses solar wind to counteract orbital decay. LDMM5 are the ultimate expression of working with the universe rather than against it—motion sustained by the dynamics of the cosmos itself, not just isolated engineering.
Long-Duration Motion Machines of the Fifth Kind (LDMM5) "Those Pioneer probes are still going after 50 years, but they'll eventually slow. LDMM5 would be something that uses gravitational fields to keep moving indefinitely—not perpetual motion, just motion sustained by cosmic dynamics. It's not a closed system; it's an open one, sipping energy from the universe's motion. LDMM5 is what happens when engineers stop fighting the cosmos and start surfing it."
Long-Duration Motion Machines of the Fourth Kind (LDMM4)
The comprehensive approach: devices that simultaneously respect all laws of thermodynamics while eliminating friction to the maximum extent—the ultimate expression of long-duration motion engineering. LDMM4 combine the energy storage optimization of LDMM1, the entropy-slowing strategies of LDMM2, and the friction elimination of LDMM3 into a single system. They're not violating physics; they're just exploiting every possible loophole to make motion last as long as physically possible. A supercooled, magnetically levitated flywheel in perfect vacuum, isolated from cosmic rays, spinning on energy stored once at the beginning—that's LDMM4. It will outlast human civilization, maybe the planet, maybe the star. LDMM4 is what you build when you want something to move longer than anything has ever moved before.
Long-Duration Motion Machines of the Fourth Kind (LDMM4) "They're designing time capsules that will spin for millions of years using superconducting magnetic levitation in deep space. That's LDMM4—all the laws respected, all the losses minimized, all the friction eliminated. It won't move forever, but it'll move longer than you can imagine. LDMM4 is the closest we'll ever get to eternity without cheating."
Long-Duration Motion Machines of the Third Kind (LDMM3)
Devices focused on eliminating friction to the maximum possible extent—the purest expression of the "long-duration" philosophy. LDMM3 aren't concerned with energy sources or thermodynamic cycles; they're obsessed with removing every last bit of resistance. Magnetic levitation in vacuum, superconducting bearings, quantum levitation—these are LDMM3 technologies. They don't create energy; they just refuse to waste it. Friction is the enemy, and LDMM3 are the ultimate war machines against it. With friction reduced to near-zero, motion continues for timescales limited only by cosmic background radiation or quantum effects. LDMM3 is what happens when tribologists (friction scientists) achieve nirvana.
Long-Duration Motion Machines of the Third Kind (LDMM3) "That magnetically levitated flywheel in a vacuum chamber will spin for decades on a single push. That's LDMM3—friction eliminated to the point where 'stopping' is just a theoretical possibility. It's not perpetual; it's just pathologically opposed to slowing down. Friction is the enemy, and LDMM3 won."