That’s typically the context I usually see it in: involving some woo. At least when it comes to medicine.
Since moving several years back I’ve been beyond annoyed that by far the closest and most convenient veterinary clinic to me is a “holistic vet” 
. So, I drive farther.
Is acupuncture hole-istic?
When did people start doing things “on accident” and more importantly why?
Wasn’t this one of Beaver Cleaver’s pet phrases? So it’s been around since at least 1957.
It’s new to me and I’ve been listening to people say things for 50 years.
My memory is that when Beaver said it, it was nonstandard and supposed to be humorous - the opposite of “on purpose”, the way a child would imagine the phrase went.
'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but: “that being said”. It’s redundant, unnecessary. I guess it’s meant to emphasize something, but it it’s just annoying.
More like contrast, not emphasize. Or more like, “yes, but”
A: We really, really need to boost sales. We’re not making our regional quota.
B: I agree we do. But that being said, we have no budget for more advertising or more sales staff, so we’ll just need to work everyone harder.
IOI, I understand the point, I agree with the point, but here’s some obstacles …
I suppose the shortest possible rephrasing of “that being said” is simply “but”
Salient night,
Holistic night 
I’m sure I’ve mentioned this before, but:
You need to…, when what they really mean is I/We need you to…
I can’t say why, but it strikes me as being patronized or talked down to.
Have ate
Have ran.
The job’s been ran.
I wish he could have saw how much people loved him
Have came (Not yet, but just wait. Any day now, some supposedly erudite professional like an NPR host will say that.)
Santa got ran over by a reindeer. This last one I just heard yesterday, while we were watching a nostalgic video of Christmas in the 1970s. The vlogger mentioned a Carpenters Christmas album, including the song “Santa Got Run Over By A Reindeer”. Of course he said “got ran over”. It says “run over” right on the damned album cover.
I know I have the dual burdens of age and an extensive education, but I’ll be blunt. Those phrases were once limited pretty much to those aged six or younger. Dialectical variants, on the other hand, would more typically substitute the participle for the past tense, for example I seen that. But now expressions like the above are going mainstream.
Said another way, mainstream is as mainstream does.
With plenty of people in fancy jobs equipped with keyboards that may have graduated college but who would’ve flunked out of HS English or composition as taught in 1970, much less 1960, the result is deplorable, but predictable.
A major cause, I suspect, is that today, people read things on screens–but don’t read books (or magazines or newspapers) to the extent that was common pre-Internet.
Such reading does make a difference in one’s sense of grammatical and usage ‘rightness.’
I thought it was Grandma!? But: yes. Not “ran.”
Yup.
We all (including me) read lots of the unedited writing of amateurs (including me). With predictable results.
It could be, but it’s not all that new. I’ve been noticing it since the early 2000s, before the advent of social media. If anything, I think it probably originated from grammar being de-emphasized in the schools, perhaps to avoid implicit value judgments on individual students. It seems incredible to me that anyone can go through twelve or more years of school, getting graded down for using the incorrect forms, and not actually learning the correct ones. Ergo, it must be that they don’t bother teaching it anymore.
And yes, it is Grandma, not Santa; thanks for pointing that out.
I was more gobsmacked by the implication that the Carpenters had ever recorded that song.
“On accident”, and similar errors involving prepositions, are examples of childspeak, and as such have probably been around since before the word “accident” existed in English. This should surprise nobody, since childspeak is obviously taking over the language. That’s why seemingly everybody is saying “on accident”.
The writers of LITB undoubtedly included the phrase to make Beaver seem more endearingly childlike to adult viewers. The show was just before my time, so I know very little about it. But I do hope that, as the character aged through six seasons, that Beaver stopped saying it.
Even in the late '60s, I didn’t learn grammar in my English classes. But I read a lot, so I knew what sounded right, and followed that in my own speech.
But I was so excited when I started French class in 6th grade (continued through high school). We had a native speaker < Bonjour, Mme. Fueger! > who knew parts of speech and cases and tenses, and wisely realized that knowing how a language works would speed our understanding of it.
I still remember the day she taught us the Conditional Tense, and my brain jumped for joy: So THAT’S why people say “If it weren’t raining today…” and why Sherlock Holmes said “If I were to stop by the Diogenes Club…”!
So many of those: Subjective Tense, Objective case… and later treats like Present Pluperfect.
(Meanwhile, our English classes were being taught by hippies: “I want you to fill a page a day, could be writing or doodling. No judgement, no grades.” Keep On Truckin’, Miss Fish! .That was fun, and good practice, but it wasn’t Knowledge!)
.
TL;dr: Learned grammar in French class, not English class.
Really nothing at all has changed except that more people can communicate unfiltered with the entire world. It’s not because schools are different. It’s because you are now reading things written by people that would never have reached your eyes in previous decades.
I don’t mean formal grammar lessons so much as the fact that written work would be marked down if it contained the kind of errors we’re talking about. You couldn’t get an A on an essay if you didn’t know when to use “seen” versus “saw” or “run” versus “ran”.