Both yours and Upstate NY's points, quite valid at first sight, end up in philosophical discussions about life and reality, life as an illusion, reality as phenomenology, relativism, existence as in ontology, knowledge as in epistemology, religions and myths, sex and gender, Heinsenberg's uncertainty principle and so on.

I know about all this. If we push our reasoning that  way, we'll get drawn in endless philosophical discussions hardly likely to bring us anywhere.
I can't find less pragmatic an approach, not even that of political ideologies.

The question is, what do we want? What was my diary entry about? Did it look like a philosophical essay? I don't have such pretence, be it only for the time I'd have to spend on it :)
This diary entry was about Politics. The relation between political ideologies and factual truth. The new approach that seem to take off these days.
My examples were not philosophical, not meant to be. I know where it would lead to start discussions about "what is truth, what is fact, what is factual truth".

I made those reflections from a position of applied political philosophy, from the perspective of, say, someone intending to enter political life, target an office, who knows, dream about becoming President of the United States of Europe.
Such a person, I believe, would have the best chances if he dropped ideological stances and stick to the cold facts, adopt a truthful, pragmatic, rational approach.

I don't care about philosophical hairsplitting, for one and only one reason: I'm speaking politics, applied, real-life politics.
Someone will maybe launch on an analysis of how braintwisting philosophic theories gave birth to political ideologies. I'm aware of that too. It is part of what I am arguing against. How many people, even amongst the highly educated, actually really understand philosophy? It is maybe the time that people be allowed to live in peace, instead of  considered as a mass to manipulate, swung back and forth with this or that slogan, deceitful worldview, emotional appeal, hate speech, visceral stimulation.
Ideologies eventually act as blinds drawn over man's conscience, no better than blind faiths. They manipulate consciences with reasonings that hardly go further than two or three moves. Instead of being told what the world is, what society is, people should be treated as rational beings first, allowed their liberty to do critical thinking. Asked their opinion, not told that this or that category would be discriminated against. Educated, not indoctrinated or culpabilized. Treated with more respect, in the end.

Of course "truth", "reality" are interpretable concepts, "facts" may be in continuous evolution, depend on the depth of analysis and so on.
But what do we care about quantum physics, or general relativity, when in everyday life Newton's laws suffice?
This may seem narrowminded, short-term-ist, but if you look better at my examples, you might seem what I mean.
I could speak about an honest approach - and longer debates might flourish, this time about morals.

So I'll just limit to saying that it's all about refusing ideology or any kind of faith in assessing situations. And using a pragmatic, rational approach for this assessment. That kind of rounds it up for me.

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)