What are objective facts?
What we think we know, we can only formulate through language. Language, by its very nature, is influenced by the culture within which each person grows up. Objectivity would involve an observer who is detached from subjective influences. Since there cannot be such an observer, objectivity cannot be practised, only assumed.

"I consider the whole idea of objectivity to be a stumbling-block, a foot-trap, a semantic trick to confuse the speakers and the listeners and the whole discussion, right from the start. For objectivity, after all, as far as I understand Helmholtz's formulation, requires the locus observandi. There the observer must strip off all his personal characteristics and must see quite objectively - locus observandi! - see it as it is. And this assumption already contains fearful errors. For when the observer strips off all his characteristics, namely language - Greek, Latin, Turkic, whatever - when he puts away his cultural glasses and is thus blind and mute, then he cannot be an observer, and he cannot narrate anything at all. The preconditions of his narration are taken away. To ascend to the locus observandi means: put aside all your personal qualities, including seeing, including speaking, including culture, including nursery, and now report something to us. Well, what is he supposed to report? He can't do that."

Heinz von Förster

I wrote an article about him here. Maybe you are interested to read it. He was quite an interesting personality. I also touch the subject of free will.

However, does this change anything regarding thoughts, words, and actions? From my experience, no, because no matter if effects can defy their causes or not, I still do as I do and you do as you do.

Can I take this as a "yes" answer that what you do and think is your responsibility?