It seems that many people on this site would elevate empirical facts (what is) into normative rules (what ought to be).

I don't think this is the case. In fact, most criticism of the original statement centres around the fact that it was insufficiently clear whether it was empirical or normative.

A cursory search reveals at least two relevant posts: 'Is' and 'Ought' and Rationality and SotW: Check Consequentialism

Nonetheless, people should indeed pick their battles, and fight those unpalatable truths they think most worth fighting.