Fallacy of Arbitrary Factuality

The error of declaring certain claims to be facts and others to be false based on nothing but personal preference or tribal allegiance, ignoring evidence, expertise, and consistency. This fallacy is how someone can believe that vaccines are dangerous despite overwhelming scientific consensus, or that an election was stolen despite dozens of court cases and audits. Facts become a la carte: you pick what's true based on what feels good, what your team believes, or what serves your interests. The fallacy of arbitrary factuality is the death of shared reality, because if facts are just whatever you want them to be, then we're not having a conversation—we're just yelling at each other from different dimensions.

Example: "She committed the fallacy of arbitrary factuality in the group chat, declaring that a viral TikTok was 'facts' while dismissing a peer-reviewed study as 'just someone's opinion.' When asked why, she said the study 'felt wrong' and the TikTok 'felt right.' Facts, for her, were feelings, and reality was whatever she felt like believing."

by Dumu The Void February 15, 2026

Arbitrary Burden of Proof

The meta-fallacy where one side is forced to prove every assertion, back every claim, and satisfy every demand for evidence, while the other side can simply move goalposts, demand new sources, dismiss evidence as insufficient, and never provide anything themselves. The arbitrary burden of proof is the debate equivalent of one person carrying a piano while the other skips ahead, occasionally turning around to complain that the piano-carrier isn't keeping up. It's how conspiracy theorists can demand that scientists prove negatives (prove that vaccines don't cause autism, prove that the moon landing wasn't fake), while offering no proof for their own claims and dismissing any evidence against them as part of the conspiracy.

Example: "She was trapped under an arbitrary burden of proof. Every time she provided a source, he moved the sourcepost. Every time she met his standard, he raised it. After two hours, she'd provided twenty sources, and he'd provided zero. When she asked what he believed, he said 'I'm just asking questions.' The questions were infinite, the answers were never enough, and the burden was hers alone."

by Dumu The Void February 15, 2026

Bias of Arbitrary Objectivity

A bias where an individual declares their own perspective to be objective while dismissing all others as biased—without any justification for why their perspective deserves the "objective" label. The bias is arbitrary because the criteria for objectivity shift to always favor the biased party: what's "objective" is whatever they believe, whatever their side says, whatever serves their interests. This bias is the foundation of punditry, of editorializing, of the confident assertion that "I'm not political, I just believe in common sense" (where common sense means my opinions). The Bias of Arbitrary Objectivity allows its holder to feel rational while being utterly unreflective, to claim neutrality while being deeply partisan. It's the bias that denies it's a bias, which is what makes it so effective and so dangerous.

Example: "He introduced himself as 'just giving the facts, no bias.' Then he spent an hour presenting one side of every issue, dismissing opposing views as 'ideological.' The Bias of Arbitrary Objectivity meant he never had to examine his own assumptions—they weren't assumptions, they were just 'reality.' When challenged, he didn't defend his views; he defended his right to be the arbiter of what counts as objective. The bias was invisible to him, which is how it worked."

by Dumu The Void February 20, 2026