For people who aren’t malignantly married to either end of the fringes doing all the shrieking lately, we aren’t willing to do anything, say anything, believe anything, because it furthers our self-righteous agenda. Does that make us horrible people?

A student asked me the other day whether I approved of exaggerating for a good cause. The topic had apparently been discussed at an environmental forum, and the question was, essentially, “Does saving the climate justify lying?” Wouldn’t it be a good idea to use an impressive, if not necessarily factually correct, message to counteract the mind-numbing cacophony of the Trump administration, which drowns out more reasoned speech?

In an excess of kindness, my guess is that this conversation is used as a rhetorical device to lead into Masha Gessen’s point, because I don’t believe for a moment that this happened the other day. Unless the other day was ten years ago, as we’re so deep into post-factual rationalization that no student would need to inquire whether lying for their team was acceptable. It’s required, as anything else makes you the enemy. No deeply passionate believer wants to be the enemy.

A couple of months ago, the presence of the president’s daughter at top-level meetings was mind-boggling; now it barely scores a mention as Ivanka Trump, security clearance nearly in hand, prepares to settle into an office in the West Wing. The idea of an actual wall on the Mexican border once seemed too bizarre, too expensive, too self-defeating — and now that the government has begun soliciting design proposals, it doesn’t seem surprising.

Wouldn’t you need equal shock value on the other side of the political divide to capture Americans’ attention?

Some, most notably the rational and knowledgeable, don’t buy into the “normalization” rhetoric for two fairly obvious reasons. The first is that doing things differently than they’ve always been done may feel “mind-boggling” or “bizarre,” but America chose change because governance in the hands of the righteous wasn’t working out very well. Sure, you’re all brilliant and empathetic, and yet life kinda sucked and the government was incapable of doing anything about it. So maybe different would be, well, different.

But if it wasn’t your preferred flavor of different, than it was wrong, and the only way wrong could happen is that people were being misled, their attention diverted with lies. So why not Newton’s Third Law of Politics?

Still, I advised the student to try to stick to verifiable facts and to avoid exaggeration — not so much for the sake of the planet as for the sake of the political environment. The public sphere needs to be protected from President Trump. It also needs to be protected from the equal and opposite reaction to him, which can be nearly as destructive.

Even if this never happened, ironic though that might be, the notion is sound.

To be sure, the 2016 election was unimaginable, and the particulars of Russian meddling deserve further scrutiny. But we seem to have fallen into a trap: The unimaginable, happening out in the open day after day, not only continues to dull our defenses but also creates a need to see a conspiracy big enough, a secret terrible enough to explain how this can be happening to our country.

Yet, therein lies the source of Gessen’s limited capacity to grasp why her advice is sound. Approaching the election of Trump as “unimaginable” compels her to parse the political landscape from the perspective that it’s all about the lies, the improprieties, the seizure of America by destructive ideologues like Steve Bannon who manipulate a moron in the White House to say and do the most outrageous of things.

Gessen’s argument against meeting lie with lie is “for the sake of our political environment,” as lies by the self-righteous can be “nearly as destructive.” Why this is so she fails to say.

Each story comes with the ready justification that desperate times call for outrageous claims. But each story deals yet another blow to our fact-based reality, destroying the very fabric of politics that Mr. Trump so clearly disdains.

There is an interesting dilemma in her assertion, as she relegates facts to herself and lies to her adversary. On the bright side, she argues against lying or exaggeration, certainly a good thing. On the dark side, her side is the side of truth and justice, and any view that she fails to share is a lie. That’s not how it works.

There is a good reason to disdain lies and the facile rationalization that “desperate times call for outrageous claims.” On a practical level, the lies, once revealed, result in a loss of credibility. While the choir of social justice warriors and Trump haters will believe anything that confirms their bias, or at least spew it for the sake of the cause, it persuades no one outside their echo chamber. No matter how impressed they are with the effectiveness of their efforts, it’s worthless in convincing anyone else.

But the lie v. lie scenario also serves to make those who mean well and desire more humane outcomes incapable of grasping why their feelings aren’t embraced by anyone outside their fringe. We don’t all wear team caps, neither red nor multi-colored. It’s hardly that everyone is so stupid that we believe Trump’s delusional reality, but that we reject yours as well.

There is a reality out there. Most of America lives it, banal though it may be to the grand vision of those who believe that we can make unicorns prance on rainbows if only we shared their feelz. The problem isn’t that we believe one side, but that we don’t believe either side. And once you’ve put your integrity in doubt by indulging in outrageous claims in support of your agenda, we may never believe you again.

That makes for a very difficult situation for everyone. But since we’re already in a post-factual society, it’s all that’s left for America until such time as a trusted source emerges again. And people like Gessen, despite her appreciated assertion that lies are not the answer, can’t distinguish lies from reality because their vision of reality is based on such deep biases.

Trump wasn’t elected because of his lies. Trump was elected because of your lies, Masha, and the person you are lying to is yourself.