That being said, with the anonymity on the web, some individuals may make up stories to help prove claims that otherwise would have no data to back them up. Does this really matter? Unless we are talking about a scientific debate that necessitates more than anecdotal evidence, those stories (true or not) are a way of creating possible worlds that some may exist in. Even if the individuals that are providing an experience are fibbing, these stories help to portray their own world view to some extent or another. So, unless you wish to have the debate shift to the validity of truth, humor them. I am not saying that you should accept the stories as true, but rather that there are instances where true is irrelevant (the good and the beautiful come to mind).

I wish I had come across this post earlier.

I’m someone with some pretty weird stories, and I hate it when I’m not believed, so I try to at least act like I’m accepting the story. It’s such an issue with me, I sometimes let it go even when I know someone’s lying (for instance, because I was there). If a man was glared at for opening a door, then told the story as above, he, apparently, *felt* slapped in the face and yelled at. Whatever. Either way, get over it, buddy.

For example, the “bitch feminist who yelled at me for holding the door” one often pops up in the context of the “feminists hate men” argument. And in the science discussions that I’m often in, there are equivalent ones. (in homebirth debates, for example, there’s the ‘evil doctor who stood by and laughed while strapping me to the table and performing a section without anethesia’ one)

For those, the common counter is “The plural of anecdote is not data”.

In essence, this is the same thing as saying “So what? Even if true, one nasty woman doesn’t define feminism” but it is 1) shorter; 2) more general; and 3) doesn’t require you to even conditionally pretend you think it’s true, so it feels better to say.

Sometimes of course they’ll throw the phrase back at you if you use an anecdote of your own. But that’s OK at least to me, because I try not to get in anecdote wars anyway and it’s not a bad thing to get a reminder to avoid them.

Interpretation’s a different story - you can accept facts as (conditionally) true while disagreeing about what they mean - that’s a good portion of what feminist discussion does. But there’s not much you can say about what someone claimed happened to, without saying something along the lines of “no, you’re lying” or “I don’t think we’re hearing the whole story here.”

One is when the person is stating a factual occurrence: “I held a door open for a woman and she slapped me on the face, calling me a patriarchal asshole”.

With those, I think there’s not much you can do, other than your four choices listed above.

But sometimes the statement is more based on intepretation. Being “racist,” “patriarchal,” “man hating,” and “biased” are good examples.

With those, if I disagree I find it is often helpful to ‘go general’ first if it seems not to fit my initial perception: Often, the issue is simply that they’re using a different definition of the word. And though people will occasionally (sadly) get pissed at this, it’s a lot less challenging and less likely to result in a fight.

So picture two different conversations:

CONVERSATION 1:
him: “What that guy did was really racist”
me (thinking ‘that’s odd, it didn’t look racist at all…’) “what do you mean by ‘racist’ in this context?
him: “Any interaction between a white and a black.”
me: “Ah. I see.”

CONVERSATION 2:
her: “What that guy did was not racist at all.”
me (thinking ‘that’s odd, it sure looked racist to me’) “What do you mean by ‘racist’ in this context?”
her: “There is no such thing as racism, unless it’s illegal”
me: “ah. I see.”

You can then argue (or not) but at least you avoid the miscommunication.