If there’s anything positive to say about the rise of the MAGA cult over the last few years, it is the shattering of illusions I’ve had regarding the general sensibilities and intellectual capabilities of the American populace. Growing up in the 80’s, learning about Nazi Germany and other cruel opporessive regimens, it can be reflexive to imagine that all of the people in those nations who sanctioned, participated in, or otherwise enabled the atrocities we were taught about represent the disposition of the populace as a whole. It’s difficult to imagine a 1940 German academic sitting in his kitchen secret stewing over how cruel and irrational his government has become, but given the circumstances surrounding our current situation, I’ve become more and more convinced that this wasn’t only possible, it was probably happening all over Germany.

There are more examples of this than I can probably flesh out over the course of a year, but I’m going to try to at least start with the most conseqential and work my way back from there. The rise of the MAGA cult can be attributed almost entirely to a campaign of misinformation and deception by the American right, but like all sinister ploys, it relied on an assumption about its targets that turned out, in this case, to be true. It relied on the idea that many conservaties could be sufficiently terrified by demogoguery so as to buy into fallacies, double-think, and confirmation biases to the point where they would set aside any pretense of principled behavior in the service of protecting the nation from these horrifying phastasms. Naive centrists and liberals (and some conservatives) thought this could not happen. Until it did.

One of the characteristics cults have in common is that they have the ability to draw in people who are intelligent – people who would normally be considered unlikely candidates for deception. This is not a bug of cults, but a feature. Cults draw in followers using a variety of methods that either work around ones intuitions or deliberately sabotoge them, often through the coupling of guilt with human nature, or the employment of logical fallacies.

Logical fallacies have been identified, distinguished, and cataloged in numerous places and are not difficult to learn about, but they can be difficult to spot in ordinary conversation, particularly if you aren’t looking for them, or if they are novel. So when I began to encounter this one some years back, it didn’t trip my skeptic-senses as it should have, but as I began to hear it more and more, I started realizing that it wasn’t just a novel fallacy, it was actually viral.

This idea is simple and seems reasonable enough: If someone has negative feelings toward someone else, their opinions about that person’s behavior should not be taken at face value. You should consider the other side of the story.

I mean, who can argue with that, right? If Jimmy doesn’t like Johnny, and Jimmy is criticizing something Johnny did, you can’t just take Jimmy’s word for it. You should hear Johnny out and make your own decision. Jimmy is being biased. Jimmy is not objective.

This seems so obvious, so logical, and so just, doesn’t it? Bias is bad. Objectivity is good, right?

The fallacy here is a mischaracterization of what objectivity is. Objectivity is not the absence of personal feelings on a matter (or a person). Objectivity is not seeing both sides of a story. Objectivity is not the act of coming into a sitution with no values, no preformed ideas, and no opinions on the operators involved. The word “Objectivity” doesn’t even apply to ones feelings – the word only applies only to situations in which one must render a judgment. To be objective is to rely exclusively on factors external to onesself in rendering a judgment.

This might sound like a technicality but it isn’t. It’s actually pretty important to understand, especially now when accusations abound of biased media, biased opinions, and biased people. It is critical to understand that having opinions does not affect ones ability to be objective.

Of course, no one is ever forced to render an objective judgment. But if they don’t, it isn’t because they can’t. It isn’t because they have feelings. It is because they have chosen to rely on internal factors rather than external (objects) factors.

To put all those abstract flowery words into concrete ideas, think of it this way. Imagine Timmy, a Chicago Bears fan kid who grows up and becomes an NFL referee. Now imagine that Timmy is refereeing a game between the Bears and the Chiefs. Now imagine that the Chiefs kick a field goal. Timmy watches it go straight through the uprights. Timmy didn’t really want the kick to be good, but he sees that it is.

Does Timmy have the ability to call this kick properly? Of course he does. To render his call, he relied on the objects in front of him (the ball, the goalposts) rather than his feelings (Damn! I hope he misses this kick!) and he calls the kick good. His feelings are irrelevant to what was in front of his eyes.

In fact, every single referee in the NFL probably has a favorite team, as does every baseball umpire, every basketball ref, etc. It makes no difference what their feelings are – their job is to call the game accurately, and they can all do it. And if a professional with integrity ever gets it wrong, it is almost certainly an honest error. We all make mistakes.

Now apply that thinking to the media. Apply it to politics in general. Apply it to philosophy. Apply it to sociology.

What happened was that at some point, folks (mostly on the American political right) didn’t like the fact that much of the media coverage of conservative administrations seemed to be negative, so they began to accuse the reporting of being biased. Today, that accusation is so ubiquitious as to be almost pop-culture in nature – people seem to take it as a given that you can’t trust anything the MSM reports.

But it doesn’t matter whether what the MSM reports is positive or negative – what matters is whether it’s true. What matters is accuracy. It doesn’t matter whether a fact is reported by a Republican or a Democrat. A fact is a fact.

The idea behind this tactic is to delegitimize the source of information preemptively. No matter how authoritative the source, no matter how expert the opinion, no matter how well documented and evidenced the information, if you can delegitimize the source, the information loses its relevance. This tactic has been embraced by todays political right (not conservatives – the political right) and no one is more relentless with this than Trump himself. In November of 2018, Fox News anchor Chris Wallace interviewed Trump and brought up the recent comments of Admiral Bill McRaven, the Navy Seal leader who famously led the raid that resulted in the death of Osama Bin Ladin. Going Full Trump, the President immediately started saying “Hillary fan. Obama fan” the moment McRaven’s name was mentioned, in anticipation of Wallace bringing up the comments McRaven made regarding Trump being a threat to national security. Wallace was gobsmacked that Trump kept repeating these words like a mantra and wasn’t sure how there was even any pretense that they was true, let alone relevant. Continuing with his question, Trump dropped the punch line – brushing off the comments as biased, and then going on the offense by suggesting that McRaven didn’t get Bin Ladin fast enough.

To wrap it up, I’ll put the logic in basic terms.

The “Appeal to Objectivity” fallacy is a non-sequiter because ones feelings on a matter do not affect ones ability to describe reality accurately. They do not affect an individual’s ability to report facts, not do they affect one’s ability to render an accurate judgment. You can be hate someone, love them, despise them, loathe them, adore them, or want them dead… it does not affect your ability to accurately describe their behavior, or to render sound judgment on it.

Don’t buy into these squeaks and squawks about bias. Don’t fall for the demands of objectivity. Don’t be concerned whether reporting is positive or negative. All that matters is whether it’s true. That’s the standard.