Is it self-contradictory to state 'there is no objective truth'? The term "objective truth" can be viewed as a tautology. If something really is true, it is by definition objective. Also, if something is subjective, it can't be true. You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts. Say, a dictator of the country of Fargo says, "The people in my country are happy." Then he trots out several smiling families who present a picture of domestic bliss. Hidden away are those who live in grinding poverty and who can't even get clean water to drink. Then the U.S. worsens their misery by declaring an economic embargo on the country. The dictator will shout, "The U.S. is a fascist country that attacks its peaceable neighbors! That is a fact." Well, it's not a fact. In order for a country to be fascist it has to meet certain criteria that the U.S. doesn't meet. Then the U.S. responds by saying, "The dictator of the country of Fargo is the worst tyrant to appear in South America in a hundred years." That isn't objectively true also. There have been several worse dictators in South America during this time. They say the first casualty of war is the truth. The dictator keeps escalating the situation, and the U.S. finally decides to invade Fargo and put someone they like in power. The thing is, when we don't have rigorous standards of discourse and reasoning bad things can happen.