Objectivity promotes demonization.

Thank you for joining this debate. I appreciate your thoughtful approach to the topic.It would seem difficult to extricate "people believing themselves to be 'Objectively' correct" from "the notion of 'Objective' reality or truths"..Anything deemed "objective" is instantly removed from know-ability. For example, if I suggest, or imagine that there may be some "objective" reality, yes, there might be, but that "reality" is now unknowable and in-fact unimaginable because I used the word "objective". Which makes it impervious to all subjective speculation. The same principle holds for "objective" truth. The very term "objective" is like a disintegrator ray. Anything you apply it to is ejected from any and all meaningful existence and is subsequently immune to any speculation of its possible nature or properties forever. This renders moot any argument about whether or not something like "objective" reality or "objective" truth might exist.Yes, the problem is when people illogically believe that anything can simultaneously be "objective" and knowable. Or if they think that "objectivity" is a quantifiable property that they can have "more" or "less" of. Both of these are impossible.Attempting to overcome your own implicit bias is a noble goal, but what you are truly searching for are undisputed, intersubjective facts. Any attempt to pursue "objectivity" is a fool's errand.I agree with you that "objectivity doesn't exist on a spectrum of some having more or less objective views than others".I also agree that "it is a category error to think of a viewpoint as having an attribute called 'Objectivity'".(1) There are illogical beliefs that lay claim to the property being "objective" and as such, demand abject and unquestioning adherence on pain of demonization.(2) Yes, I am "claiming that most individuals have a poor understanding of the concept of Objectivity and that the use of the word in our current modern lexicon leads to a propensity for Demonization."(3) All human concepts are subjective and communication between individuals is facilitated by intersubjective undisputed facts. Our ability to hold a conversation is ample evidence that our subjective views overlap on at least some basic level.(4) I might add here that some have suggested (in a sort of "tu quoque" allegation) that I am attempting to replace the concept of "objectivity" with logic, and that I am somehow "demonizing" anything that is not logical. The key difference here is that logic (IS) detectable (AND) measurable. While "objectivity" is not. And while some people may be offended when their belief is revealed to be illogical, that by itself fails to meet the standard of "demonization". Illogical does not equal "bad" or "evil" or "irredeemable" it simply suggests some revision may be required.I agree that "us" and "them" categories may be fundamentally unavoidable. Let me just be clear that I am not making any attempt to dissolve all categories, just false dichotomies. A full discussion of "us" and "them" is probably better approached from the concept of "identity", which I will attempt to leave alone for now.(A) Please explain why you propose that consensus is a "very poor substitute for rational discourse when dealing with truth claims". You seem to be suggesting that consensus is incompatible with "rational discourse" while I fail to find the two in any conflict.Dissent itself is not necessarily demonized. Dissenting opinions have proved to be crucial to the proper functioning of the Supreme Court. Critique and dissent are the very foundation of good science. Dissent is vital to the very concept of durable integrity. When open dissent is demonized and opinions are not subject to questions then conclusions become bloated and weak. This dogmatic approach breeds overconfidence and overconfidence leads to catastrophe.I hope this answers some of your questions and I look forward to continuing this discussion in the next round.