Objectivity Moralism

A form of moralism where claiming objectivity becomes a performance of virtue and a weapon against those with different perspectives. The objectivity moralist presents their own view as simply "objective truth" and treats any alternative as not just mistaken but morally suspect—biased, ideological, irrational. They don't need to argue because they claim to speak for reality itself; disagreement is not just error but a kind of sin against truth. The moralism lies in using the claim of objectivity to immunize oneself from critique while condemning all alternatives, treating one's own perspective as the view from nowhere while everyone else is hopelessly situated. Objectivity becomes not a goal to strive for but an identity to claim, a weapon to wield, a way of feeling righteous without being right.

Example: "He didn't present arguments—he simply asserted that his view was 'objective' and everyone else was 'biased.' Objectivity Moralism: using the claim of neutrality to justify taking sides."

by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal March 14, 2026

Objectivity Puritanism

A purity culture within communities that treat objectivity as not just a goal but an identity marker and test of belonging. Objectivity puritanism demands that true members demonstrate their freedom from bias, their commitment to neutral truth, their transcendence of mere perspective—while systematically exempting their own community from such scrutiny. Members compete to demonstrate their objectivity by condemning the bias of others, perform neutrality while taking sides, claim the view from nowhere while being thoroughly situated. The result is a community that claims to be uniquely free from the distortions that affect everyone else, using "objectivity" as a weapon of exclusion rather than a tool for clearer seeing. The irony is that objectivity puritanism is itself a form of bias—the bias of believing oneself unbiased.

Example: "They claimed to be 'just presenting the facts' while systematically excluding any perspective that challenged their own—Objectivity Puritanism, using the language of neutrality to protect orthodoxy from examination."

by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal March 14, 2026

Objectivity Orthodoxy

The established, institutionalized set of beliefs about objectivity that dominate Western epistemology and practice—the often-unexamined assumptions that objectivity is possible, that it requires detachment, that it's achieved through method, that objective knowledge is superior, and that objectivity is the standard to which all inquiry should aspire. Objectivity orthodoxy includes specific commitments: that the knower can be separated from the known, that bias can be eliminated, that neutral observation is possible, that quantification enhances objectivity, that subjective experience is suspect. Like all orthodoxies, it provides a framework for epistemic evaluation, but it functions as ideology when it becomes dogmatic—making a particular conception of objectivity seem like the only conception, obscuring how claims to objectivity often serve power, and delegitimizing alternative epistemic values (subjectivity, positionality, engagement). Objectivity orthodoxy determines what knowledge is considered "reliable," what methods are "rigorous," and who counts as "objective" versus "biased."

Example: "He claimed his view was objective and hers was biased—not because he'd examined his own position, but because objectivity orthodoxy had made his perspective invisible to himself. The orthodoxy's power is making particular positions feel like the view from nowhere."

by Dumu The Void March 17, 2026

Objectivism

Definition:
Objectivism (n.) — the philosophy which explicitly recognizes and consistently applies the primacy of existence in every branch of philosophical inquiry.

Etymology:
From "objective" (Latin objectivus, “considered in relation to an object,” from objectum, “that which is thrown before the mind”) + -ism (denoting a system or doctrine). Coined by Ayn Rand (1905–1982) to name her integrated philosophical system based on objective reality.

“Objectivism rejects all forms of mysticism and subjectivism by upholding reason as man’s only means of knowledge, a consequence of its fundamental premise: the primacy of existence.”

by Cynical Corgi November 9, 2025

Polarized Objectivity

When you don't know what to write about in your executive summary and your third group member refuses to do anything so you just make some bullshit up to make it sound like you know what you are talking about.

The factor of speed has not been addressed yet in the article, as its importance is subjected to the user, rather than being something that has polarized objectivity.

by lipoicacid April 13, 2025

Polarized Objectivity

When you don't know what to write about in your executive summary and your third group member refuses to do anything so you just make some bullshit up to make it sound like you know what you are talking about.

The factor of speed has not been addressed yet in the article, as its importance is subjected to the user, rather than being something that has polarized objectivity.

by lipoicacid April 13, 2025

Evidence Objectivity Bias

A variation of objectivity bias where something only counts as evidence if the person making the judgment says it's evidence. "That's not evidence because I say so." The bias replaces objective standards of evidence with personal fiat, making the individual the sole arbiter of what counts as proof. Evidence Objectivity Bias is what allows conspiracy theorists to dismiss mountains of data while accepting a single tweet as proof. It's what allows bad-faith arguers to demand evidence, then reject it, then demand different evidence, then reject that—because the real standard is not evidence but agreement. If you agree with me, your evidence counts; if you don't, it doesn't. The bias is the "because I said so" of epistemology, the final refuge of those who have no arguments left.

Example: "She provided study after study showing vaccine safety. He dismissed each one with Evidence Objectivity Bias: 'That's not real evidence.' When she asked what would count, he said 'I'll know it when I see it.' He never saw it. The bias had made him the sole judge of what counts as proof—and his judgment was that nothing that disagreed with him could ever count. Evidence wasn't the issue; control was."

by Dumu The Void February 20, 2026