Self Diagnosis Is Valid

A Tumblr tag used by idiots who think it's okay to pretend to have autism or that think they have autism because of TikTok. Same with DID, ADHD, Tourette's, and other disabilities/disorders. Bro? They're serious mental conditions. Disorders aren't xenogenders! And no, you don't know better than a doctor with a PHD. Get off Tumblr, touch grass, and get a life.

Emily, 13 year old self-diagnosed autism/DID haver and coiner of some new dissociative disorder or "system" trait: GRRR! I'm sick of these uneducated fools thinking that my self diagnosis isn't valid. DOCTORS HATE WOMEN AND BLACK PEOPLE!!!11!! DiAGNOSIS IS A PRIVILEGE!!!!! #SELF DIAGNOSIS IS VALID
Lucy, an actual autistic person: What the fuck are you on about? You do know that Autism doesn't just mean you're forgetful and DID isn't the hip trendy disorder that everyone wants, right? I deal with a lot of crap from idiots for my autism and it's extremely disrespectful that you-
Emily: ABELIST!!!!!! DNI RIGHT NOW!!!!! *blocked*

by Twig 757 December 26, 2023

When the proof remains valid

This refers to a situation where someone is accused of something, and while there is evidence presented, there is uncertainty about whether that evidence is genuine or fabricated, yet it has been officially deemed valid.

Nicholas: “Yo, you think that buttass text he showed was real?”
Marinucci: “They looked fake at first, but they got verified."
Kmoh: "When the proof remains valid.”

by KmohHasOpps May 5, 2025

Law of the Valid Ad Hoc

The principle that ad hoc constructions—explanations, arguments, solutions devised for a specific purpose—can be genuinely valid within their limited domain. The law is a defense of pragmatism against purism: not everything needs to be universal to be useful. A theory that explains one phenomenon, even if it fails elsewhere, is valid for that phenomenon. A solution that works once, even if not replicable, is valid for that once. The law of the valid ad hoc reminds us that validity is not all-or-nothing; it comes in degrees and contexts. The valid ad hoc is the workhorse of practical life, even if it doesn't make it into textbooks.

Example: "She jury-rigged a fix for her broken printer using tape and a paperclip. It worked exactly once, for exactly one document, then fell apart. The law of the valid ad hoc said: it was valid for that document, at that moment. It wasn't engineering; it was survival. Sometimes survival is enough."

by Dumu The Void February 17, 2026

Law of the Valid Fallacies

The principle that there exists a class of arguments that are technically fallacious by formal standards yet genuinely valid in practice—reasoning that works even though it breaks the rules. These "valid fallacies" include arguments that persuade reasonable people despite logical flaws, inferences that lead to true conclusions through invalid steps, and reasoning that succeeds where formal logic fails. The law of the valid fallacies acknowledges that human reasoning is richer than formal logic, and that sometimes the technically invalid is practically sound. It's the logic of "it shouldn't work, but it does," of the intuitive leaps that turn out right, of the arguments that convince because they're right even though they're wrong by the book.

Example: "Her argument was technically fallacious—circular reasoning, begging the question. But it was also true, and everyone knew it. The law of the valid fallacies said: sometimes the fallacy is valid. The circularity didn't make it false; it just made it formally invalid. Formal invalidity and practical truth can coexist."

by Dumu The Void February 17, 2026

Theory of Valid Post-Truth

The systematic elaboration of valid post-truth as a framework for understanding contemporary epistemology. The Theory of Valid Post-Truth argues that we are witnessing not the death of truth but its mutation—a shift from truth-as-correspondence to truth-as-performance, truth-as-identity, truth-as-weapon. It traces the conditions that produced this shift: the collapse of trusted institutions, the rise of social media, the weaponization of information, the fragmentation of publics. It doesn't celebrate this shift or lament it; it seeks to understand it, to map its contours, to navigate its terrain. The Theory of Valid Post-Truth is the attempt to think clearly about a world where truth is no longer what it was.

Example: "He'd been searching for a way to understand the new information landscape—the lies that felt true, the facts that convinced no one. The Theory of Valid Post-Truth gave him language: truth had mutated, shifted from correspondence to performance. He stopped trying to fight the old war and started learning to navigate the new terrain."

by Abzugal February 21, 2026

Theory of Valid Postmodernism

The systematic elaboration of valid postmodernism as a framework for critical engagement with contemporary reality. The Theory of Valid Postmodernism argues that postmodern insights are not a descent into relativism but an ascent into complexity. It traces the development of postmodern thought, shows how its critiques can be used constructively, and develops criteria for distinguishing between useful deconstruction and destructive nihilism. It doesn't claim that all truths are equal; it claims that truth is more complicated than we thought. The Theory of Valid Postmodernism is the attempt to think clearly in a world where old certainties have collapsed and new ones haven't yet been built—and maybe shouldn't be.

Example: "He'd been searching for a way to hold postmodern insights without falling into despair. The Theory of Valid Postmodernism gave him that: critique without cynicism, deconstruction without destruction, complexity without collapse. He could see how truth was constructed without giving up on truth. He could question everything without believing nothing. Valid postmodernism was the middle path he'd been looking for."

by Abzugal February 21, 2026

Theory of Valid Relativism

The systematic elaboration of valid relativism as a framework for understanding truth, knowledge, and value. The Theory of Valid Relativism argues that relativism, properly understood, is not a surrender to arbitrariness but a sophisticated recognition of context-dependence. It develops criteria for evaluating perspectives without appealing to absolute standards: coherence, comprehensiveness, practical adequacy, explanatory power. It distinguishes between weak relativism (all perspectives are equally valid) and strong relativism (perspectives can be compared and evaluated, but not by absolute standards). The Theory of Valid Relativism is the attempt to think clearly about a world where truth is plural but not meaningless.

Example: "He'd been searching for a way to acknowledge cultural differences without giving up on judgment. The Theory of Valid Relativism gave him that: different truths, but not equally valid. He could respect other perspectives while still evaluating them, learning from them, sometimes rejecting them. Relativism didn't mean no standards; it meant better standards."

by Abzugal February 21, 2026