I tend to agree with your assessment. I’m not really sure why certain folks, and only a few, tend to get bugged down on technical arguments which in most cases the OP didn’t even ask or care about. A more annoying but related gripe I have is some of these members challenge other members who are obviously more qualified in expressing their position in an objective manner. We can argue all day long on subjective opinions but technical subjects are generally based on data and facts, both of which are absolute by definition.
The other thing is that all existence is subjective, inescapably so. Tied to the only fact in existence, which is: there are no facts.
It is a problem that circles around the drain of the idea of consciousness. We’ve projected, in our subjective existence, that objectivity and facts exist, when they simply do not. Objectivity is an agreed upon idea, in an entirely subjective reality experience. The only fact we know to exist, is that there are no facts.
Which, neatly, parallels the particle/wave paradox. Not a coincidence.
Facts are an agreed upon reality. An agreed upon projection. They posses no reality of their own - whatsoever. It is not the fundamental, and must always be remembered.
This thought is unpopular (viciously so) in engineering science or technical science, mostly due to the conceptual headiness required to grok it. But it is the underlying fabric of theoretical sciences, exploratory sciences, the philosophy of science. These areas of conception are the parent branch of engineering sciences, and engineering thoughts and sciences have no capacity to overrule the origins of objective science and objective reality.
There’s a lot of misconceptions about logic and process in engineering sciences, and that area (engineering sciences) does attract people of a certain mindset. Not pondering the greater questions, ie, ignoring them... does not give engineering sciences the stance, position, or credibility to overrule the origins of the fabric and scope of the known nature of reality.
If one wants to understand the nature of reality, it is important to consider that none of it is ironed out in nature, shape or causal connections..that it is still..to this day..turtles all the way down.
The thinkers do get it and it can be a big bit of width and scope to try and grab it whole. It’s why Elon Musk said that it is ’billions to one’ that we exist in a base reality -and that this has to be a simulacrum of some sort or nature.
All cutting edge science and mathematical explorations, etc, all point you in that direction.
So people can talk facts and whatnot, but in the final analysis, it means jack. Exactly Squat.
In our day to day lives we can ignore these things but they must NEVER be forgotten, even for a second. If you forget or ignore the fundamental carrier of your reality you will find that some of the caricatures that ride on top of it (like engineering science, objective science) somehow, over time... supplant the fundamental reality. Then you’ll end up going far far off course. Like a blind newborn puppy crawling into a corner and crying. No way out. With no idea how to move forward.
In essence, in audio..as you (anyone reading this) can then see or hopefully..try and 'get'..that objectivity vs subjectivity..is a mixed bag. At best.
Essentially, Objectivity exists in a bubble. An agreed upon format in basis, communications, references and so on..but..in a bubble. A subset bubble of a greater reality.