I think this phenomenon can be likened to strawmanning, since both include defense against an imagined version of the "actual meaning". More exactly, I think it can be considered an instance of "subtext strawmanning", since it probably came from applying exaggerations to the connotation of the criticism, using logic like "criticism => impolite => disrespectful => threatening => actual danger".
In general, paying attention to the way in which parties interpret fallaciously aspects of a discussion other than the actual logic seems like a useful thing to do.
What's going on in someone's head when they jump from "it's impossible to avoid giving offense when delivering serious criticism" to "but we can at least achieve some basic level of mutual respect about whether other people deserve to live"?
This seems related to the "Argument is War" class of metaphors. They may have (subconsciously) thought that the consequences of war (i.e., danger) also apply to things like blogging, since the criticizing person has "attacked" their argument/post through their criticism. While fallacious, I don't think such logic is absurd or implausible.
I think this phenomenon can be likened to strawmanning, since both include defense against an imagined version of the "actual meaning". More exactly, I think it can be considered an instance of "subtext strawmanning", since it probably came from applying exaggerations to the connotation of the criticism, using logic like "criticism => impolite => disrespectful => threatening => actual danger".
In general, paying attention to the way in which parties interpret fallaciously aspects of a discussion other than the actual logic seems like a useful thing to do.
This seems related to the "Argument is War" class of metaphors. They may have (subconsciously) thought that the consequences of war (i.e., danger) also apply to things like blogging, since the criticizing person has "attacked" their argument/post through their criticism. While fallacious, I don't think such logic is absurd or implausible.