3 ms·

I have no idea if OP is exaggerating, or even telling the truth. The point is that anecdotes are worthless. Giving anecdotes any level of serious consideration

by timr 4y ago

I have no idea if OP is exaggerating, or even telling the truth. The point is that anecdotes are worthless. Giving anecdotes any level of serious consideration is inherently exaggeration of a niche position. This subthread is now filled with comments taking an anecdote from a complete stranger -- someone they don't know and whose story they cannot possibly verify -- and attempting to shame/attack/villainize anyone who presents an alternative to that narrative. One anecdote is good, but the other one is bad. Why? It's just another form of argumentum ad misericordiam (appeal to pity): if you discount the emotional narrative, you must be a heartless person, unworthy of serious consideration.

akaralar 4y ago
no one is trying to attack you because of an alternative narrative. if you left out the “let’s not exaggerate” part it would be an anecdote of perfectly equal value, because both are anecdotes by internet strangers as you say. people are attacking you because you were highly insensitive in carrying the conversation to a point where in addition to talking about your own experience, you assumed the other person was trying to tilt the convo to their favor by using emotions, and you are trying to devalue their personal experience. we are humans after all and we are not doing science here, you can show some sympathy for a tragedy and make your point at the same time, they are not mutually exclusive.
- timr 4y ago
  > you assumed the other person was trying to tilt the convo to their favor by using emotions, and you are trying to devalue their personal experience. You assume the OP was telling the truth, and therefore, we should all defer to the emotional anecdote. What if they're not? How would you know? The only difference between us is that I don't make that assumption. Giving undue credence to anecdotes is a form of exaggeration.

by timr 4y ago

akaralar 4y ago

no one is trying to attack you because of an alternative narrative. if you left out the “let’s not exaggerate” part it would be an anecdote of perfectly equal value, because both are anecdotes by internet strangers as you say. people are attacking you because you were highly insensitive in carrying the conversation to a point where in addition to talking about your own experience, you assumed the other person was trying to tilt the convo to their favor by using emotions, and you are trying to devalue their personal experience. we are humans after all and we are not doing science here, you can show some sympathy for a tragedy and make your point at the same time, they are not mutually exclusive.

timr 4y ago
> you assumed the other person was trying to tilt the convo to their favor by using emotions, and you are trying to devalue their personal experience. You assume the OP was telling the truth, and therefore, we should all defer to the emotional anecdote. What if they're not? How would you know? The only difference between us is that I don't make that assumption. Giving undue credence to anecdotes is a form of exaggeration.