Physicists really need to be more criticized for their quantum woo nonsense they push as supported by physics. Even those who intend no harm still confuse people by repeating poor language choice. Nothing about Bell's theorem deals with realism at all, it simply has no relevance to the notion. It is about the incompatibility between locality and separability, which plenty of materialist philosophers have rejected separability on the grounds of logical consistency since the 1800s. It's not even a new idea to reject separability.

Indeed, calling contextuality "nonrealism" is a bit silly when one considers that you can just acknowledge that reality is contextual and, boom, contextuality is compatible with realism. Indeed, there is a whole philosophical school called "contextual realism" that takes this position.

I would recommend reading Francois-Igor Pris' writings on the subject.

Indeed, you even say that there is no way to define reality independent of the way one looks at it. This is the logical fallacy you are committing. Is it impossible to define reality independent of how we look at it because we are conscious observers, but in spite of it? The confusion disappears when you make this distinctions.

You also cannot define velocity independent of how you look at it, it is inherently reference frame dependent. Yet, nobody uses it to prove reality independent of the observer doesn't exist. The fact it depends on how we look at it is a property of reality in spite of conscious observers, not because of it.

Physicists get lost in quantum woo with bad arguments they don't seem to think through very hard. Philosophy is not your department. Just stay away from it.