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
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".
... (read more)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.