I'm usually pretty restrained in letting people know when their statements or actions bother me. Although I find it ridiculous and irritating when bumped into by some oblivious person (please note the restraint I displayed by not using the term, moron, buffoon or imbecile) who is walking backwards in public. Sounds like only a prankster would do something like that, but people do it everyday in places like the mall, amusement parks, public sidewalks...I won't go on, because this is a peeve that I have overcome. Instead of railing at the offender's lack of geo-positional awareness, I just write my discomfort off to personal boundary issues and tell myself to get over it and move on (with due care and consideration for others, as always).
One thing I refuse to adapt to, though, is when people use inaccurate anecdotal tropes to illustrate some issue which defies "conventional wisdom". As an example, I submit the case of poor Stella Liebeck, the wrongfully maligned burn victim of a dangerously hot cup of McDonald's coffee. I won't rehash the particulars of the case for you, because there are numerous excellent articles out thereabout it. My peeve is that, even though the events occurred over twenty years ago, I hear, almost monthly, someone citing her successful litigation and award as an example of frivolous abuse of the American Justice System.
There has been some scholarly writing that refutes this point of view, but doesn't quite sway me.