Definitions by Dumuabzu
Moving the Proofgoal
Similar to moving the proofpost, but focused on redefining the ultimate, final piece of evidence needed for total concession. The “proofgoal” is recast as something even more unattainable or different in kind, ensuring the “final proof” can never be reached.
Moving the Proofgoal Example: After being shown multiple eyewitnesses and forensic reports for an event, a skeptic says, “Okay, but my ultimate proofgoal was always a continuous, unedited video from a neutral third party covering every single second. Since that doesn’t exist, I remain unconvinced.” They’ve retroactively moved the finish line to a different planet.
Moving the Proofgoal by Dumuabzu February 8, 2026
Moving the Proofpost
The act of shifting the required standard of evidence after some evidence has been provided. When the initial “proofpost” is met or approached, the arguer redefines what constitutes valid proof, invalidating the newly presented evidence without engaging with it.
Moving the Proofpost Example:
“Show me one major economist who agrees with your policy.”
You cite a Nobel laureate.
“Well, he’s old and out of touch. Show me a young, heterodox economist who isn’t part of the establishment.”
They’ve just moved the proofpost to dismiss the fulfilled request.
“Show me one major economist who agrees with your policy.”
You cite a Nobel laureate.
“Well, he’s old and out of touch. Show me a young, heterodox economist who isn’t part of the establishment.”
They’ve just moved the proofpost to dismiss the fulfilled request.
Moving the Proofpost by Dumuabzu February 8, 2026
Proofgoal
The elusive, often vaguely defined, piece of evidence that an arguer claims would settle the issue for them. It is presented as a reasonable target but is usually defined with such specificity or grandeur that it is practically unattainable, functioning more as a conversation-ender than a genuine objective.
Example: In a climate debate, someone says, “My proofgoal is a single, undeniable piece of evidence that 100% conclusively proves human activity is the sole cause of all warming, with zero margin for error or natural variation.” This “proofgoal” is a mythical, perfect piece of evidence whose impossibility is used to justify ongoing skepticism.
Proofgoalpost
The moment when the type of required evidence itself becomes the moving target. An arguer doesn't just move the goalpost for what will convince them; they shift the fundamental category of proof required (e.g., from statistics to personal testimony to historical documents and back), ensuring the debate remains forever about the rules of validation, not the substance.
Example:
Person A: “Here are crime statistics.”
Person B: “Statistics can be manipulated. I need a victim’s testimony.”
Person A: “Here’s a victim’s interview.”
Person B: “That’s just one emotional story. I need hard data.”
They aren’t engaging with evidence; they’re constantly moving the proofgoalpost.
Person A: “Here are crime statistics.”
Person B: “Statistics can be manipulated. I need a victim’s testimony.”
Person A: “Here’s a victim’s interview.”
Person B: “That’s just one emotional story. I need hard data.”
They aren’t engaging with evidence; they’re constantly moving the proofgoalpost.
Proofgoalpost by Dumuabzu February 8, 2026
Goalproof
A seemingly objective standard of evidence that is, by its very nature, impossible to meet in the given context. The goal is the lack of proof; it's a criterion designed to be perpetually unfulfilled, thereby permanently protecting a belief from disconfirmation. It’s the ultimate defensive rhetorical fortification.
Goalproof Example: A conspiracy theorist claims, “The government is run by lizard people. Any document or expert saying otherwise is part of the cover-up, so the only goalproof would be a lizard person voluntarily revealing itself on live TV.” Since this will never happen (by their own definition of the cover-up), their belief is rendered unfalsifiable and “proven” by the lack of proof.
Proofpost
A specific, rigid standard of evidence that an arguer plants in the ground as the only acceptable form of validation for a claim. Unlike a simple goalpost, a proofpost is defined by its fetishization of a particular, often hyper-formal, type of proof—like demanding a peer-reviewed longitudinal study to acknowledge an anecdotal experience. It’s the initial, unreasonable demand for a specific kind of evidence that the opponent is unlikely to provide.
Proofpost Example: In a discussion about the emotional toll of gig work, someone states, “I’ll only accept proof in the form of a randomized control trial showing a causal link between app-based driving and clinical depression. Personal stories are just noise.” They’ve set a proofpost—an almost impossibly high and inappropriate bar—designed to invalidate the conversation from the start.
Proofshitpost
The aggressive, bad-faith demand for impossible or irrelevant levels of formal proof ("peer-reviewed studies only") to discredit an opponent's lived experience or a well-established social fact. The goal isn't to get proof, but to move the goalposts indefinitely, knowing the demand can't be met in the context, thereby declaring victory by default.
Proofshitpost Example: When presented with statistics and personal testimonies about systemic racism, a responder says, "I'll need a double-blind, controlled study where identical twins of different races apply for the same jobs, or this is just correlation. Until then, I don't believe you." This is proofshitposting—using an inappropriate standard of "proof" from hard science to invalidate social reality and halt discourse.
Proofshitpost by Dumuabzu February 8, 2026