> 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.