I could see that working on a personal level, like your example of your family, because they invariably have to see those other members of your family every so often who disagree with their views and so they quiet down to avoid confrontation in the sake of convenience. But on a societal level I don't think it works that way, it's a larger and more complex living group than a singular portion of a family, I mean, even on your micro level I don't think shame really works as you said they are just more discreet about it. So again, what does that tactic truly accomplish?

At the end of the day shame, guilt and fear are just flat out poor motivators; education is the only real solution.

That's just the thing though, you aren't alone. Your reaction is something that has become fairly common(especially online) and things have remained the same. Encounter something you don't like? Shout it down, shame it, silence it.

But it doesn't work, it just fuels the machine. They believe they are persecuted and well you just gave them personal "proof" of their perceived persecution and they fight on. You may believe it works other wise, that it silences them, but time and time again we see the scenario I described happening. Look at Kim Davis in Kentucky, have all the millions of insults lobbed her way silenced her or the people who support her?No, it only solidifies their resolve and as I mentioned earlier caused lookers on to perhaps question if maybe she is persecuted as the insults are all they see.

So again, other than making you feel better what does it accomplish? It doesn't make your argument clearer, doesn't discredit her opinion and causes onlookers to think she may have something. And that's true of every time you go for the quick put down rather than the rational response. 

The Golden Rule is a wonderful guide to living one's life, but it doesn't mean that I can't question another person's illogical statements and beliefs. I haven't tried to shout others down. Quite the contrary. Sometimes appeals to logic and reason work, and as you say, education can and should be an answer. Sometimes satire serves the purpose, too. 

But when a well educated man like Ben Carson can blithely explain that Darwin was influenced by Satan, and the rest of us are all supposed to avoid questioning that kind of statement, let alone making fun of it, we have a problem. If Ben Carson weren't running for the nomination, his crackpot beliefs would still be irritating, but at least I and 250 million other people would not have to reckon with the implications of his beliefs were he to become President. 

Now Carson may turn out to be an afterthought, as Huckabee is, but because the GOP in particular has placed whatever balls it has in the pockets of its hard-line right-wingers (witness the overthrow of the Bolshevik Boehner), any and all of them are potentially dangerous, because so much of the Tea-Party-driven agenda is based on untruths. Facts mean nothing to such people.

Maybe "fawning" was the wrong adjective to use to describe the respect we are forced by convention to give to someone's opinion, no matter how uninformed it is. "Lip-biting" is a better descriptor. I am tired of having to bite said lip and smile politely and pretend to accept people's ignorance, whether its origins spring from prejudice, ignorance or religious beliefs. If someone's beliefs don't hold up to being challenged or questioned, maybe he or she will reconsider and re-evaluate them. I don't want to be in pissing contests, but I would enjoy a well-informed discussion, because I don't think that I have all the answers, as many of those "in the know" do.

We're not talking about trying to convince me that I should have watched "Lost" before I decided I wouldn't like it, or that I'd love Brussels sprouts if only I'd try one. We're talking about beliefs that, if used to shape environmental, foreign and domestic policy, could have disastrous effects.

You don't have to bite your lip either, as I said it's all about putting forth the best version of your argument and the best version should never be fueled by vitriol but rather cool logic.

That depends on whether I am actually being an idiot or not.

With the first two, yes biting your lip is appropriate. We all have different ways of dealing with death emotionally and we all grieve in our own ways. It's a very personal moment and what works for some doesn't work for others, and there's no real way of saying which way is "better". It seems like an empty platitude to you and I but it may have been heartfelt and comforting to the person who said it. Now, in your own grief I can see why one would be tempted to lash out, and that too should be excused due to again how we deal with our own emotions.

As for the situation you recounted about your experience on 9/11 I'll call back to what I said earlier, sometimes situations are just so emotional that you just can't help but react in kind; after all we're human not machines. If perhaps it was a less emotional moment you could have opened a serious dialogue, "I know you're just expressing relief that your friend is safe but did you stop and think about how your comment may effect other people who's friends and loved ones who were on that flight and didn't escape?" would have been far less confrontational and allowed a reasoned discussion to take place.

Again, because of the emotions around 9/11 no one could have possibly expected you to be able to react in that cool of a manner, in your place I would have likely done the same, but I think the difference between the scenario you described and my alternate one is clear.