Thing is that people are entitled to have different opinions and we can argue about those all day. But people are not entitled to different facts, and if someone pretends 2+2=5, then there's very little arguing about that. It's not that I'm too tired to argue, but if someone is so far out of the common ground, there's no basis on which it makes sense to argue because they'll just declare all of your premises void and "win".
And perhaps a broader point is: "Facts are simply opinions we generally agree upon."
At its best, "Science" doesn't claim the force between two objects is proportional to the product of their masses. It merely observes that this has been the case in all known, well-documented instances, and attempts to find exceptions have failed, so that this "law" is valid and reliable, and expected to remain so forever.
We use the term "fact" very casually, and eagerly. "The Dow is up 20% year-over-year, unemployment is under 4%, and the dollar is strong. The economy is strong. That's a fact!" Not only is that not a fact, it's not even a fact that unemployment is under 4%. That's (presumably...) just the U3 number as published by the Department of Labor.
My point is: the best "facts" still require a certain amount faith in the data sources around us. That's fine. I don't wish to visit every country on Earth to ensure that it exists, and observe the weighing of the Kilogram in Paris. (I mean, unless I can take time to sightsee a bit.)
There has been a genuine breakdown in that faith in authority in US culture. Maybe Ukraine attacked Russia first. Maybe poor people are inherently lazier than rich people. Maybe the Earth is flat.
I believe this breakdown has been intentionally orchestrated and groomed and fed by nefarious people like Rupert Murdoch, but that's just an opinion. Based on things I like to call "facts".
