Definitions by Dumuabzu

N-Body Problem

A metaphor for any social, political, or intellectual situation so complex that accounting for every relevant actor, force, or variable makes a precise, stable solution impossible. Borrowed from physics (predicting the motion of multiple celestial bodies), it describes a system where every element is both influencing and being influenced by every other element in unpredictable, cascading ways. Attempts to "solve" it with simple models or linear logic fail catastrophically.

Example: Trying to "fix" a polarized online political ecosystem. You have millions of users (bodies), each with their own beliefs, algorithms amplifying conflict, bad-faith actors, media outlets, and real-world events. Any single action (a policy change, a fact-check) sends unpredictable ripples through the entire network, often worsening the problem. It's an N-Body Problem—the interacting forces are too numerous and interdependent for a clean solution.

N-Body Problem by Dumuabzu February 8, 2026

Moving the Reasonpost

The act of shifting the governing mode of reasoning mid-debate to sidestep a compelling point made within the previous framework. When an opponent effectively uses utilitarian reasoning, for instance, the arguer might suddenly insist that “true reason” must consider long-term existential risks or deontological rules, invalidating the prior calculation.

Moving the Reasonpost Example:
You use data-driven, utilitarian reasoning to support a policy.
They say, “Your short-term numbers are irrelevant. A truly reasonable person would think generationally about cultural precedent. You’re being myopic.”
They’ve moved the reasonpost from quantitative utility to vague, long-term cultural reasoning to avoid your data.

Moving the Reasonpost by Dumuabzu February 8, 2026

Reasonpost

Similar to a logicpost, but focused on dictating the specific mode of reasoning that is acceptable (e.g., purely utilitarian cost-benefit analysis, strict biological reductionism). It frames this mode as “reason itself,” branding other forms of reasoning (deontological, emotional, intuitive) as “unreasonable.”

Reasonpost Example: In an ethics debate, someone states, “The only reasonable way to judge this is through a utilitarian calculus of net happiness. Any appeal to ‘rights’ or ‘dignity’ is an emotional appeal, not reason.” They’ve set a reasonpost, excluding entire ethical traditions from the domain of valid discourse.

Reasonpost by Dumuabzu February 8, 2026

Moving the Logicpost

When, after an opponent successfully engages within a prescribed logical framework, the arguer changes the rules of what constitutes “valid logic.” This can mean switching logical systems (from deductive to inductive), redefining fallacies on the fly, or declaring that a formally valid syllogism is now invalid because it’s “based on a false premise” they previously accepted.

Moving the Logicpost Example:
You use their preferred deductive logic to build a sound argument.
They respond: “Deduction is limited. Real-world problems require fuzzy logic, which your binary reasoning fails. Your point is logically simplistic.”
They’ve moved the logicpost from formal deduction to an amorphous alternative to evade your conclusion.

Moving the Logicpost by Dumuabzu February 8, 2026

Logicpost

The tactic of establishing a specific, often overly rigid, logical framework (e.g., strict formal syllogisms) as the only permissible mode of argument. Any point not presented within this narrow logical syntax is dismissed as “illogical” or invalid, regardless of its empirical or ethical merit.

Example: In a discussion about workplace fairness, someone declares, “We will only use propositional logic. Present your argument as a series of ‘If P, then Q’ statements, or it’s not a real argument.” They’ve set a logicpost, disqualifying narratives of experience, analogies, or ethical reasoning from the start.

Logicpost by Dumuabzu February 8, 2026

Moving the Proofgoalpost

The grand, master technique that combines all the above. It involves continuously and fluidly redefining both the specific evidence required (the proof) and the ultimate objective or standard (the goal) in a coordinated, relentless dance to avoid ever acknowledging a point. It’s the rhetorical equivalent of a shifting maze.

Moving the Proofgoalpost Example: In a debate about historical injustice:
First, they demand documentary archives. When provided, they say the archives are incomplete (moving the proofpost).
They then say the real proofgoal is a firsthand account from a specific leader. When an account is found, they dismiss it as biased (moving the goalproof).
This integrated, evasive strategy is moving the proofgoalpost.

Moving the Proofgoalpost by Dumuabzu February 8, 2026

Moving the Goalproof

A defensive tactic where, when faced with overwhelming evidence that meets the stated standard, the arguer changes the criteria for what makes evidence trustworthy itself. The goal (what’s needed) and the proof (what counts) are both shifted simultaneously in a single, fluid maneuver.
Example:

Moving the Goalproof Example:
“Show me a reputable media report on that.”
You show a report from the Associated Press.
“The AP is part of the corporate media complex. Their ‘facts’ are compromised. You’d need a leak from a brave whistleblower inside.”
They’ve moved the goalproof—redefining both the source and the nature of acceptable evidence in one move.

Moving the Goalproof by Dumuabzu February 8, 2026