Law of the Absolute and Relative Ad Hocs

The principle that ad hoc constructions operate in two modes: absolute ad hocs (solutions or explanations that are so perfect for their specific case that they achieve a kind of universal validity within that case) and relative ad hocs (temporary fixes that work for now, in this context, but won't survive beyond it). The law acknowledges that some ad hoc solutions become permanent—the temporary fix that becomes the standard, the one-off explanation that becomes the theory. Others remain forever ad hoc, useful only in their original context. The law of absolute and relative ad hocs helps distinguish between the ad hoc that transcends its origins and the ad hoc that remains forever local.

Law of the Absolute and Relative Ad Hocs Example: "His ad hoc fix for the leaking pipe—a clamp and some rubber—worked so well it became the permanent solution. The law of absolute and relative ad hocs said: this ad hoc transcended its origins; it became absolute for this pipe. His later ad hoc fix for a relationship problem—flowers and an apology—remained relative: it worked once, for that fight, and couldn't be generalized. Both were valid in their way."

by Dumu The Void February 17, 2026

Law of the Absolute and Relative Fallacies

The principle that fallacies operate in two modes: absolute fallacies (errors that are fallacious in all contexts, by any reasonable standard) and relative fallacies (errors that are fallacious in some contexts but may be acceptable or even valid in others). The law acknowledges that some fallacies are universally wrong—affirming the consequent, denying the antecedent, non sequiturs that genuinely don't follow. Other fallacies are context-dependent—appeals to emotion that are appropriate in some settings, ad hominem that is relevant, slippery slopes that sometimes happen. The law of absolute and relative fallacies reconciles the need for logical standards with the reality of contextual reasoning.

Law of the Absolute and Relative Fallacies Example: "They debated whether his emotional appeal was fallacious. Absolute fallacies: non sequiturs, formal errors—he hadn't committed those. Relative fallacies: emotional appeals can be fallacious in some contexts, appropriate in others. Here, asking for compassion was relevant. The law said: relatively, not absolutely fallacious. She accepted the nuance, which is rare in online arguments."

by Dumu The Void February 17, 2026

Fallacy of Absolute Deprivation (also "Communism Killed Millions" Fallacy)

A form of fallacy that cites the absolute number of deaths attributed to communist regimes—typically the Soviet Union, China, or Cambodia—as an argument against any form of socialism or communist thought, while ignoring context, comparative analysis, or the question of what those numbers actually mean. The fallacy works by presenting large numbers as self-evident condemnation, as if the scale alone settled the matter. It ignores that all modern states have killed millions—colonialism, capitalism, imperialism, democracy—and that the question is not whether atrocities occurred but what caused them, whether they were inherent to the system or contingent, and what the alternatives were. The Fallacy of Absolute Deprivation is beloved of cold warriors and those who prefer moral simplicity to historical complexity. It reduces genocide to a statistic and uses that statistic to foreclose thought.

Fallacy of Absolute Deprivation (also "Communism Killed Millions" Fallacy) Example: "He ended every discussion of socialism with the same numbers: 'Stalin killed millions. Mao killed millions. Pol Pot killed millions.' The Fallacy of Absolute Deprivation meant he never had to engage with arguments about healthcare, wages, or working conditions. The numbers did all his work for him—never mind context, never mind comparison, never mind that capitalism had killed its millions too. Absolute numbers, absolutely weaponized."

by Dumu The Void February 20, 2026

Fallacy of Absolute Grievance

A fallacy that treats all grievances as equally valid—or equally invalid—by refusing to make distinctions of scale, context, or severity. The fallacy flattens all complaints into a single category, making it impossible to prioritize, to distinguish urgent from trivial, or to allocate attention appropriately. It's the logic of "everyone has problems, so your problem doesn't matter," of "both sides have grievances, so both are equally wrong." The Fallacy of Absolute Grievance is beloved of false-balance merchants and those who want to avoid taking sides. It ignores that some grievances are matters of life and death while others are matters of inconvenience, and that treating them as equivalent is itself a form of violence.

Example: "He responded to her account of systemic racism with the Fallacy of Absolute Grievance: 'Everyone faces discrimination. White people have problems too.' The equivalence was false, the balance manufactured. Her centuries of oppression were flattened into 'everyone has problems,' and suddenly no one had to do anything. Absolute grievance had made action impossible."

by Dumu The Void February 20, 2026

Fallacy of the Absolute Exception

A fallacy that uses an extreme, often hypothetical exception to dismiss a general rule or pattern. "There are exceptions, therefore the rule is invalid." The fallacy treats the existence of any counterexample—no matter how rare, how marginal, how irrelevant—as proof that a generalization is worthless. It's the logic of "some smokers live to 100, so smoking doesn't cause cancer," of "one minority succeeded, so discrimination doesn't exist." The Fallacy of the Absolute Exception is beloved of those who want to deny patterns they find inconvenient, who would rather focus on the exception than address the rule. It ignores that generalizations describe tendencies, not absolutes, and that exceptions prove the rule only in the sense of testing it—not disproving it.

Example: "She presented decades of data showing systemic racism. He responded with the Fallacy of the Absolute Exception: 'But my Black friend made it, so it's not systemic.' One exception, one data point, used to dismiss mountains of evidence. The rule didn't matter; the exception was all he needed. The fallacy had done its work: making the systemic invisible."

by Abzugal February 21, 2026

Fallacy of Absolute Superiority

The belief that one's position, system, or ideology is simply, absolutely superior—not just better than alternatives, but good in itself, the best possible, beyond meaningful criticism. Absolute superiority is the logic of the true believer, the ideologue, the patriot who can't imagine their country being wrong. It's the fallacy that makes criticism impossible because the thing being criticized is definitionally beyond reproach. Absolute superiority doesn't argue; it declares. It doesn't defend; it asserts. It's the favorite fallacy of those who have identified their cause with truth itself, and therefore cannot hear dissent as anything but error.

Fallacy of Absolute Superiority Example: "He didn't defend capitalism; he declared it absolutely superior. Every criticism was met not with argument but with incredulity: 'How can you question the system that has given us everything?' Absolute Superiority meant there was nothing to discuss—capitalism was beyond criticism by definition. The conversation was over before it started, which was exactly what he wanted."

by Abzugal February 21, 2026

Theory of Absolute and Relative Efficiency

The theory that efficiency operates in two modes: absolute efficiency (efficient by any measure, in any context, for any purpose) and relative efficiency (efficient within a framework, by certain standards, for certain interests). The Theory of Absolute and Relative Efficiency argues that true absolute efficiency is rare—perhaps nonexistent. Most efficiency is relative: efficient for some purposes, not others; by some measures, not others; in some contexts, not others. The theory calls for distinguishing between the two, for not mistaking relative efficiency for absolute, for recognizing that "efficient" always begs the question: by what standard, for whom, at what cost?

Theory of Absolute and Relative Efficiency Example: "The factory was efficient by capitalist standards—maximizing output per worker. By ecological standards, it was disastrous. The Theory of Absolute and Relative Efficiency explained: relative efficiency (to capital), not absolute. The owners presented it as simply 'efficient,' hiding the relativity. She started asking what standards were being used, and whose were being ignored."

by Abzugal February 21, 2026