Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 o…
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.