How to handle curious conversations ... part 1 of a few billion

So … Suppose someone comes up to you and makes a claim. This claim isn’t backed by facts, merely by unicorns, rainbows, and their own biases. Yeah, this kind of relates to the previous post. They argue based upon the claim. Stake out their ground. Insist that “none shall pass” in a black knight, Monty Python esq manner. But they are wrong. Simply, factually wrong. Regardless of their biases, you and many others have been demonstrating the very thing that is claimed to be impossible, to customers for years. And helping them achieve it. It’s used, in production, working very well for years … There are many approaches to handling this. One, seemingly favored by some these days, is to go in with rhetorical guns ablaze. Others, prefer to try to snipe specific points. My recommendation … after nearly 20 years of parenting is this: Pick your battles. Is this one so very important? Is everyone on the internet wrong, and must they be corrected? Or can you simply not engage in an argument, with someone who likes to argue for the sake of argument? That is, sometimes, I simply refuse to engage if there is no real upside. I can work with people whom I don’t agree with, on projects I don’t agree with, as I am focused on the mission. I don’t want to lose the war for the price of winning a battle. One if the issues I think I see, not in this specific case, but in others on the interwebs, is a tendency towards infantilism. It manifests in a “it’s my way or the highway, and I’m gonna hold my breath until I get my way, or some attention.” How … just how … is this helpful? Jeff Bezos has a philosophy that I like. You can disagree, but then you commit to the path you collectively agree upon. Even if there remains disagreement. You air your concerns, respectfully, and then move past that. Why aren’t we (collectively) doing more of this?