Providing balance is not "minimizing". Sharing an emotional/fearful anecdote does not lay claim to truth.

You're doing exactly the same thing classichasclass is, but in the opposite direction - and "minimize" seems like a fair antonym of "exaggerate".

Well, yes. Exactly. That's my point. I'm sharing the boring story that doesn't get headlines.

I don't object to you sharing your boring story. I do find it hypocritical to say, "let's not exaggerate based on personal anecdotes" while doing the same thing.

Person 1: "the world is coming to an end!"

Person 2: "well, hold on now. Things still seem okay to me."

Person 1: "why are you minimizing it?!?"

I'm not saying that OP isn't telling the truth. I'm not even saying that their story is less representative than mine. I'm just saying that my boring story also exists, and we shouldn't fixate on (i.e. "emphasize") the emotional stories because they're emotional.

That's a very disingenuous example that bears little relation to classichasclass's original post. They said they know people who have suffered significantly because of COVID and for that reason they are still cautious. You immediately responded "let's not exaggerate". How have they exaggerated?

Then you say "It still doesn't give them carte blanche to exaggerate or emphasize scary anecdotes at the expense of boring ones." In what way is the post made by classichasclass at the expense of other anecdotes? It makes absolutely no sense.

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.

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.

> 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.

If someone has a relative die from a shark attack and doesn't swim in the ocean anymore, that's their choice, it's even understandable.

But as I see it, relative to nowadays, the analogy would be that people are arguing that no one should ever allowed to swim in the ocean or should be wearing a life vest 24/7, even on ground.