I agree that trying to bring out the implications of the other's argument helps move things along, but that's not what happens with strawmanning. The problem is that it's not doing that at all, but rather attacking something that isn't there, and commonly derails conversation. Accusing the other person that they believe in clearly dumb shit is generally taken to be an insult, regardless of background.

I think you're giving strawman users too much credit. Intentionally misrepresenting somebody else's argument at best motivates them to clarify their position and possibly elaborate on another topic, but arguing in good faith lets you reach that point without antagonizing them in the process.
>¥ inb4 are you saying...
What, don't like being strawmanned?

Having to dial the conversation down in order to explain to someone who doesn't get it is boring and unproductive. Steelmanning is by contrast useful if you want the person to feel like he's being listened to, but it neglects to address the mistakes in their thinking in a genuine, non-glossed over way. It's better to just talk and to try to not make weird assumptions about people.

Straw man? Like gingerbread man cookies? what kind of logical debates does a cookie person have

There's a difference between taking its argument to its logical conclusion and strawmanning. Strawmanning is when you ignore the actual arguments that someone is making and substitute them with something stupid and easy to refute. It doesn't actually prove anything, it just wastes time.

>Oversensitivity to strawmen
I'm sick and tired of any opposition to annoying bullshit as "oversensitivity". I can put up with it, but I don't want to. You're not strong for letting mosquitoes suck your blood, you're an arrogant retard whose hurting himself for no reason.

>When you're being strawmanned and you're not interested in dealing with that, just ignore or reply "no I didn't mean that."
I was on another imageboard today, and a guy was doing that to me. I corrected him, and he ignored me. I corrected him again, and he ignored me again. This happened on and off for a whole day. The kinds of people who are willing to strawman you aren't interested and/or capable of having a meaningful discussion.

¥ Strawmen and steelmen are, in fact, accelerated topic progression techniques for casual discourse or questioning to sort the nuances and implications out ASAP.
They're just attacks more often than not, it gives a lot of credit to bad faith actors when you say this, if someone strawmans my position and I correct them I'm not grateful because they furthered conversation and eliminated "implications", I'm annoyed because they tried and failed to derail a conversation, or because they are (intentionally or not) completely out of sync with what I'm communicating. Not all strawmans are intentional but none of them are unequivocal goods either, its also fairly obvious when a strawman is made in complete bad faith, which just implies a person doesn't want to engage with you on neutral grounds.

In casual discussions with friends or affiliates its fine to be misrepresented sometimes, its not the end of the world, but its a bit different on the internet where "discussions" can escalate into involved parties trying to impose their worldview and putting a personal stake in the outcome of the discussion. I'd also say overall if you can't infer someone's true position there's a big difference between implying a specific stance as a strawman versus just telling them that you think their position is vague.

satori-chan made a wise choice emphasizing the 3 in orin's :3

>>166002
he lost his leg in nom

People who straw man are not geneinuly interested in discussion.

Steel manning is the opposite as you are actually forced to acknowledge the other persons real positions.

So basically you just want to hurl insults at people and justify it

Nuance clarification-oriented tier scale of discourse strictness, for discourse with at least some cooperation to it:


[Logic Combat]
What's this, Umineko!? Danganronpa!?
Like reinventing the wheel to answer the physics teacher question you don't know the easy answer for while he criticizes your every step!
CASUALLY CLARIFYING FOR IMPLICATIONS CAN BE MISTAKEN FOR STRAW MAN AND WHATABOUTISM. THEIR CONTENTS WILL HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED IF THEY'RE ACTUALLY IMPORTANT, ANYWAY

[Constrained Lecture]
You're there to just deliver your points and push them through via argumentation against counterpoints.
CASUALLY CLARIFYING FOR IMPLICATIONS CAN BE MISTAKEN FOR STRAW MAN AND WHATABOUTISM. THOSE WILL BE TREATED POORLY, NOBODY'S HAVING ANY OF THAT

[Bantz]
Anything goes for fun, and clarifying your boundaries is normal.
STRAW MAN AND WHATABOUTISM ARE INHERENT HERE, AND CAN EASILY BACKFIRE INTO BEING BANTERED AGAINST YOU

[Brainstorming]
Just crunching ideas like they're lockpick tools for a lock.
CASUALLY CLARIFYING FOR IMPLICATIONS IS OKAY AND IS SUPPOSED TO BE DONE TO EXPLORE IDEAS

[Casual Discussion]
You're not detached, but you just don't even care if someone's expressed opinion is disaster-tier wrong. Maybe you'll joke about it, but that's it.
CASUALLY CLARIFYING FOR IMPLICATIONS IS GREAT TALK FUEL


All problems around "straw men" come from someone not clarifying the tiers, misreading the tiers, mistaking the tiers, or handling a tier shift poorly (not keeping up, or making an awkward shift).