Definitions by Dumu The Void
Prooflioning
Similar to sourcelioning but focused on proof. The prooflioner demands proof, receives it, then demands proof of the proof, then proof that the proof is valid, ad infinitum. Each demand is made in a calm, seemingly reasonable tone (“I’m just trying to understand”). The goal is to create an infinite regress that no one can satisfy. Prooflioning often targets foundational assumptions (e.g., “prove that logic works,” “prove that perception is reliable”) in bad faith.
Example: “He asked her to prove the Earth is round. She showed satellite photos. He said ‘prove the satellite wasn’t faked.’ She showed independent observations. He said ‘prove your eyes weren’t deceived.’ Prooflioning – demanding proof of the means of proof until infinity.”
Prooflioning by Dumu The Void June 1, 2026
Sourcelioning
The act of repeatedly and persistently asking for sources on the same point, even after sources have been provided, in a manner analogous to sealioning. The sourcelion ignores previous responses, asks for “better” sources, or moves the goalposts. Each request is phrased politely (“Could you provide a source?”) to appear reasonable, but the cumulative effect is exhausting. Sourcelioning is a form of attrition argumentation designed to wear down the opponent into giving up.
Example: “She provided a source. He asked for another. She provided five. He asked for ‘more credible’ ones. She provided ten. He asked for ‘non‑Western’ sources. After the 15th request, she stopped replying. He announced victory. Sourcelioning: drowning the opponent in endless demands.”
Sourcelioning by Dumu The Void June 1, 2026
Evidencelighting
A combination of evidencedismissing and digitallighting. After evidence is provided, the evidencelighter claims that the evidence was never requested, that it is fabricated, or that the provider is being “obsessive.” They may also accuse the provider of “weaponizing evidence” or “information overload.” The goal is to shift the blame onto the person who fulfilled the request, making them appear unreasonable for simply doing what was asked. Evidencelighting is a common tactic in harassposting campaigns.
Example: “He asked for ‘any evidence.’ She sent three studies. He replied: ‘You’re bombarding me. I never asked for a whole library. You’re clearly unstable.’ Then he screenshotted her messages and posted them as ‘proof’ of harassment. Evidencelighting.”
Evidencelighting by Dumu The Void June 1, 2026
Prooflighting
A digitallighting tactic where, after proof is presented, the requester gaslights the provider by denying that the proof was ever requested, claiming it was “unsolicited,” or that the provider is “manipulating” them. They may also delete their original request and then accuse the provider of “randomly sending proofs.” Prooflighting is common in online debates where the manipulator wants to appear as a victim of unwanted information. It aims to delegitimize the act of proving itself.
Example: “He wrote ‘prove it.’ She gave a proof. He then deleted his message and replied: ‘Why are you sending me unsolicited proofs? This is creepy. You’re stalking me.’ Prooflighting – erasing his own demand to make her look like the aggressor.”
Prooflighting by Dumu The Void June 1, 2026
Sourcelighting
A form of digitallighting where, after sources are provided, the person who requested them begins to gaslight the provider – e.g., claiming the sources were never requested, that the provider is “aggressive” for sending them, or that the provider is “spamming” or “obsessed.” Sourcelighting twists the act of providing requested evidence into an offense. It is often combined with reporting the provider for “harassment.” The goal is to punish cooperation and discourage future source‑sharing.
Example: “He asked for ‘any credible source.’ She sent a link. He replied: ‘I didn’t ask for a whole document. You’re flooding my notifications. This is harassment.’ Then he reported her. Sourcelighting: making you regret answering the request.”
Sourcelighting by Dumu The Void June 1, 2026
Evidencesplaining
A variant of sourcesplaining and proofsplaining, focused specifically on empirical evidence. After receiving evidence, the evidencesplainer lectures the provider on why the evidence is not “real evidence” according to some idealized standard (e.g., “only RCTs count,” “anecdotes are worthless,” “your sample size is too small”). The lecture is often patronizing and ignores the context of the claim. Evidencesplaining is used to shut down discussion by asserting epistemic superiority without substantive engagement.
Example: “He asked for evidence that traditional medicine works. She provided ethnobotanical surveys. He replied: ‘Let me explain what evidence really means. You need double‑blind, placebo‑controlled trials with p<0.05. Your surveys are just stories. I’ll educate you…’ Evidencesplaining – lecturing instead of listening.”
Evidencesplaining by Dumu The Void June 1, 2026
Proofsplaining
The act of demanding proof, receiving it, and then condescendingly “explaining” to the provider why their proof is not real proof – often using arbitrarily high standards or irrelevant criteria. The proofsplainer positions themselves as an authority on what counts as proof, while rejecting any that would actually satisfy a reasonable person. They may invoke “logic,” “Bayesian reasoning,” “standard of evidence,” or “philosophy of science” in a superficial way. Proofsplaining is a power move, turning a genuine exchange into a lecture.
Example: “She offered a mathematical proof for her theorem. He replied: ‘That’s not a proof – you didn’t explicitly list all axioms. Real proof requires formalization in first‑order logic. Let me explain what a real proof is…’ Proofsplaining: using high‑status jargon to dismiss valid reasoning.”
Proofsplaining by Dumu The Void June 1, 2026