I have no idea if OP is exaggerating, or even telling the truth. The point is that anecdotes are worthless. Giving anecdotes any level of serious consideration is inherently exaggeration of a niche position.

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.