I’m familiar with one-uppers - like if you say I only got 6 hours of sleep last night and someone has to chime in and say “that’s nothing! I got only 3 hours”

So something similar to that but not one-upping.

Like if you said "I worked in a warehouse once, my boss was cool, and the work wasn’t bad. " And then someone replied with, “I don’t know what gravy-ass, non-real-job place you worked at, but every warehouse I have worked in sucks!”

So, the person is kind of one-upping but that the same time trying to claim that your lived experience isn’t true and their experience is the way things actually are.

Is there a word for that?

  • Zdvarko@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    16 hours ago

    In the trade industry here in New Zealand, we have a specific term for such a person, we generally refer to them as ‘cunt’

    • tunetardis@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      24 hours ago

      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.

  • TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    17 hours ago

    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

    • logos@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      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?

          • TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            17 hours ago

            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”

            • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              15 hours ago

              Eristics aside, I think anecdotal fits:

              What is Anecdotal Fallacy?

              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.

              • TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                15 hours ago

                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!

  • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    24 hours ago

    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.

  • TheImpressiveX@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 day ago

    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

  • Shirasho@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    24 hours ago

    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.