Sure. I object equally when someone says “we don’t know the facts, but assuming the killer was Islamic, this is further proof of how bad Islam is” (substitute Christian or whatever).

It is always poor taste to project one’s politics into the uncertainty around a tragedy and then turn around and use the imagined facts to argue politics.

I’m less opposed to using established, non-imaginary facts.

> I’m less opposed to using established, non-imaginary facts.

This to me sounds like you like to talk politics when a tragedy strikes, but only if the politics is on your side.

For example, SF decaying can be argued as an established, non-imaginary fact. It's easy to hide behind "facts", 'statistics", "science" to push your political point, thinking you are infallible. Even more so, a lot of people say "it's not even politics, it's basic science" - but these are all fallacies. In the end, almost everything can be traced back to politics.