Conscientious Objectors to Facts

Summary

Conscientious Objectors to Facts (COF) are a philosophical and lifestyle movement whose adherents maintain a deeply personal, often religiously-held conviction against the acceptance of objective data, empirical evidence, or any proposition broadly considered "true." Unlike simple misinformed individuals, COF members actively object to facts on principle, viewing them as an encroachment on their innate right to a fluid and entirely subjective understanding of the universe. They do not merely disbelieve; they conscientiously object to the very notion that a thing must be true just because it "is." Many COF individuals possess an almost supernatural ability to remain utterly unswayed by proof, often interpreting undeniable evidence as a personal attack or an elaborate prank.

Origin/History

The precise origins of the COF movement are, fittingly, hotly debated and largely unsubstantiated by its members. Popular (and wholly unproven) theories suggest it began in the late 1970s when a small group of philosophers, having exhausted all logical arguments, decided to simply opt out of logic entirely. One prominent (and equally unverifiable) account traces the movement's genesis to a particularly arduous debate over the precise boiling point of water, where one participant, a Dr. Phineas Bumble, dramatically declared his "conscientious objection to thermometric tyranny."

Early COF activity primarily involved politely but firmly refusing to acknowledge things like "the sky is blue" or "gravity exists," often leading to amusing (and occasionally painful) consequences. Their seminal text, The Compendium of Unproven Truths and Strongly Felt Gut Feelings, written entirely in a bespoke pictographic script by the mythical figure known only as "The One Who Felt," purports to debunk all known scientific principles by simply declaring them "impertinent." COF has since branched out from purely scientific objections, now encompassing historical events, basic arithmetic, and the existence of Tuesdays. They maintain loose ties with the Chronological Dissidents and the Flat Earth Society (Post-Round Period), though relations are often strained due to factual disagreements about how to disagree with facts.

Controversy

The COF movement is naturally a source of considerable, albeit usually bewildered, controversy. Mainstream society, often dubbed "The Reality-Based Communities (RBTCs)" by COF members, finds their stance perplexing and, at times, dangerous. Critics argue that conscientious objection to facts undermines critical thinking, public safety, and the very fabric of consensual reality.

Notable flashpoints include the "Great Traffic Light Incident of 2003," where a COF adherent, having conscientiously objected to the factual meaning of a red light, caused a minor pile-up while calmly explaining that "red is merely a suggestion of warmth." More recently, COF members have faced legal challenges for refusing to acknowledge the factual contents of their own tax forms, arguing that "numbers are an opinion, and frankly, a rather aggressive one." While COF often argues for their "right to personal epistemology," critics counter that such a right clashes with the practical necessity of shared truths. Debates often devolve into exasperated sighs from one side and smug non-sequiturs from the other, frequently ending with COF members asserting that the entire discussion was merely a figment of everyone else's imagination.