I replied to one of those posts on Facebook.

[Daskinor]

Friend of mine posted a blog post on her Facebook feed. I was a healthy food not really healthy done by someone who is really crunchy. Particulars are not important.

What was important (at least to me), was that every single thing in the blog post was wrong. Every single 'fact' the author used was demonstrably false.

So I replied and listed out the top 10 wring things in the blog post. And how I thought the author was just making things up as click bate. Then the flame wars begun. Not with the friend mind you, just with her even more crunchy relatives. It did not matter what the 'facts' were, just that it reaffirmed their beliefs.

then they brought up how 2 months ago I insulted them by replying to a "common core is so hard" by making a step by step video and posting it to youtube as my reply. So now I am just lording over them with my 'public school' education. Only because I can prove a particular food existed over 100 years ago because Shakespeare wrote about it. And that Greek Olympians did not because we have surviving first and second hand documents describing what the did and did not eat.


This got me in WTF mode.

Also other people where chiming in, mostly in agreement with me. This got the crunchys even more upset. So I stopped replying as the war waged on. And that somehow proved that they where right. I was beyond the point of caring, but the lesson is learned.

Don't argue with people on Facebook.

[TheHuckster]

Blind faith does not just pertain to religion, as this demonstrates.

I always avoid confrontation on Facebook, not so much because I risk getting unfriended (although keep in mind some of the people I often disagree with are close friends or family members who I don't want to vex over the internet; I prefer to do that kind of thing in-person instead), but because it's bad for my heart health. I often overreact to what people say on social media/internet, so it's best I ignore it and move on.

There is one exception to this rule: If someone is posting a "fact" that may persuade them to do something dangerous (facetious example: "I heard pouring liquid plumber into my child's ear will cure ear infections") then I will pipe up and do everything in my power to save an innocent kid from harm. I am also very tempted to debunk incredibly stupid hoaxes that gullible people post. The most laughable was a picture of what looked like a 600 pound realistic-looking infant sculpture being unloaded from a truck (can't find the exact photo, but here's the sculpture) with the caption "Prayers for this poor baby please. Comment with amen."

Interestingly, I don't get as stressed when debating in person, possibly because the back-and-forth is more contained into the course of a few minutes rather than a few hours as internet debates often get, and it's easier to step away if things really get out of hand.

I also feel fortunate that for the most part the people I know aren't complete nut cases besides the aforementioned "amen" person. I don't know of any antivaxxers, chemtrail believers, people who don't know the PEMDAS principle, or people with extreme political positions... besides one guy who is siding with Trump in this election cycle, but then again last election he was all about Obama and the election before he kept going back and forth between McCain and Obama, so the best word I can use to describe him is hopelessly confused, more than politically extreme.

[Gravekeeper]

...lording over them with your public school education...

I don't even know where to start with that.

[Talon]

Once I got into it slightly over a FB post regarding Kim Davis being "persecuted" for refusing to issue marriage licenses to teh gays. I pointed out that she's a public official working for a secular government, and she had no one but herself to blame.

Someone responded with a long word salad post full of hyperbole. I think the gist of it was even the worst criminals deserve due process or whatever. I decided responding was a waste of time. That was that.

I say debating on FB is fine as long as you manage your expectations. People who aren't moved by facts aren't worth the effort. But hey you never know, someone might be swayed by your comments even if they don't participate in the thread.

So now I am just lording over them with my 'public school' education.

Hello Dunning–Kruger effect.

[Daskinor]

The whole home schooling thing is a sore point for these people I am talking about. The tl;dr on it is, their mother home schooled, was highly educated and a good teacher. Her children felt like they need to home school but they are really bad at it. They cant get past buying workbooks and helping their children though the workbooks level of teaching. So anything new is bad because they are unwilling or unable to learn new things to pass to their children.

Then throw in the the fact that the state I live in requires that home schooled children meet certain criteria in order to remain home schooled. They have started to develop a prosecution complex about anything somewhat related to the subject.

Using the match example they can not teach the why we do things a certain way in math. They can only teach the easiest method to do anything. And suddenly the "why" of any math problem becomes the focus, the correct answer is a distant second. And it just blows their mind, why would the answer be second to the method. We have seen that mentality here, and it is not a good one to have while teaching.

I tend to avoid discussions about home schooling, just using the line. "It's not about public vs private vs home schooling, its about how good of a teacher the person is and how well the parents help in teaching their child."