[FRIAM] strawman fallacy

[∄ uǝʃƃ]

In support (that he likely doesn't want) of Marcus' constraints on the wiggle room allowed to "individualists", I've often wondered about the VERY common accusation of "strawman!", as a response to criticism.  To put my wonder in context, I saw this article on a very liberally biased website (RawStory):

  The Varieties of American Evangelicalism
  https://crcc.usc.edu/report/the-varieties-of-american-evangelicalism/

wherein they use some seemingly strawman characterizations of some pretty deep and interesting psychological pathologies.  With names like Trump-vangelicals and iVangelicals, even *if* their classification is useful, it's offensive (by proxy, of course, since all that god stuff is obsolete to me).

Contrast that with an article to which it links:

  Can Evangelicalism Survive Donald Trump and Roy Moore?
  https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/can-evangelicalism-survive-donald-trump-and-roy-moore

The question I care about is: To what extent are tedious regressions into the etiology of a toxin attempts to *treat* the disease and to what extent are they a waste of time?  I try to steelman whenever I can.  But the snowflake sensibilities of self-described individualists are a bit too irritating.  It's tough to imagine a canonical, self-sustaining, self-governing, morally solid, archetype like John Wayne whimpering about how he's been strawmanned.  Such wilting rhetoric makes an actual individualist like the Unabomber seem more upstanding and trustworthy ... and that inference is just plain dangerous.

Here's a fun exploration of whether it's OK to punch nazis: https://youtu.be/iEyL1rDe60w

-- 
∄ uǝʃƃ