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.
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.
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.
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.
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.