!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
I think what you are describing is either egocentric bias or experiential bias.
“ Egocentric bias is the tendency to rely too heavily on one's own perspective and/or have a higher opinion of oneself than reality. It appears to be the result of the psychological need to satisfy one's ego “
Thanks, this sounds like the most accurate and precise answer to the question.
Yeah, the method used sounds like some sort of selection bias (cherry-picking or whatever you want to call it), but the motivation behind it (as there is a definite intent here to steer the discussion) is likely egocentric or just a general need to be contrarian or condescending.
In the trade industry here in New Zealand, we have a specific term for such a person, we generally refer to them as 'cunt'
Anecdotal evidence
If it’s even an argument and not a simple refutation, I think it’s got to be based on personal anecdote, but it also kinda just sounds like “No, you’re wrong.” with a sprinkle of anecdote or no true Scotsman.
Argument from asininity?
Anecdata.
Unless it’s stupid, then it’s anecdodo.
This is the answer
it's a fucking stupid answer. that's not what anecdotal evidence means at all
What does anecdotal evidence mean then?
It's just a broad umbrella concept in formal logic. what makes you think this interaction is best described by logic and not psychological or social dynamics? it's not like the fuckin dude is publishing a research paper. op has someone busting their aglets and wants to find words to describe the experience. what makes you think their chief complaint is the same concept that can describe the statement "all cats are black"
Eristics aside, I think anecdotal fits:
It is an informal fallacy where a person uses personal experiences or a singular example to back their argument or stance instead of compelling evidence.
Edit: After reading the question again, and trying to understand your thoughts, I think I agree more with egocentric bias.
ooh i see so it doesnt fall under formal logic. interesting! honestly that makes me feel even more strongly against it lol. but still more than anything it comes down to rationalizing an irrational process -- after all even speaking the language of faulty logic is a way of turning things into logic!
yea i didnt specify it in my own answer but i think egocentric bias is a good fit. however even that expression does not inherently convey the hostility that OP is experiencing!
Invalidation
Yes- they are invalidating or minimizing your experience.
The word my family uses for that is "mom".
Conservative/ reactionary.
No seriously. Take the time to look at the structure and framing of conservative and reactionary arguments. Its almost ALWAYS rooted in strictly their lived experience: no other lived experience matters. The answers others are giving are technically correct, but also miss how deeply rooted this particular structure is in political identity.
Reminds me of the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy based on the example you provided. Wiki article
Invalidation?
Dismissal?
Look, I don't know what made-up arguments you've been in, but whenever I post online, no one has ever tried to dismiss my experiences as untrue.
/s
it's gaslighting. yep Definitely gaslighting. I totally know what gaslighting means and everything I don't like is gaslighting
or maybe it's woke. tell them to stop gaslighting you with their woke comments
/bj
The Linux Argument.
Non-jokes aside, there are multiple names for this. Anecdotal evidence is the primary one while confirmation bias is discarding statements (factual or fictional) that do not align with your vision.
As someone with personal experience with interacting with people, I have to disagree. Nobody has EVER done anything like this, and it does not require a word.
Unsympathetic
If the people you talk to can't / won't or don't acknowledge your existence or your experience, then they are just simply unsympathetic and have little or no empathy for others.
I don’t know of a single word or bit of slang that describes that (annoying) type of personality. It’s a bit contrarian with a dash of experience hijacking. There should be a word for that though. Any ideas?
Contramaxxing?
I would call this qualia chauvinism, when people need to feel their subjective experience is universal.
Insecure, contrarian, infantile.
Depending on the angle (a lot going on there) you could go with "denial". As in, you're lying, because if you're bot, then my life sucked, and that's unacceptable, so you're lying.
This person is one-upping you only to prove to themselves that their experience was justified, by making yours unjustified. I get defensive when someone brings up a workplace I struggled with. I think the perspective of the person that put your experience down as "not-real" is attacking your experience out of defense. It's rude and ugly, but the alternative is that "warehouses" are Not bad to work in, or that you are better at working a warehouse than they were. It might be emotionally painful to consider those alternatives, and it's much easier to make younger workers feel overly entitled.
"Actshuuuaallyy..."
Confirmation bias.
Opinions are like arseholes, everyone’s got one
thre is a phrase. its called typical internet discourse ;p
Gaslighting?
No
No, gaslighting is when you say it's sunny outside and someone argues that it's actually cloudy. You can see for yourself that it's sunny, but they insist it's not. Usually, it's not so cut-and-dry, my example is absurd to demonstrate how insane it is. Usually it's more subtle, like you're sure you put your keys on the key-hook next to the door, but your spouse says that you didn't and then finds them in the bathroom or something. You're 100% sure you put them on the hook, but your spouse is 100% sure you didn't. (Spoiler, you did, and the spouse moved them, then lied and said you must have done it. The point is to make you doubt yourself.)