[contravariant]

The worst variation of this is people inventing and subsequently refuting an argument that some group of people allegedly made. It's almost becoming rare for someone to refute a political argument in a direct discussion.

[AceJohnny2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[tacticalmook]

Build a straw man to "represent" a group, then refute its argument to deter the target group from ever joining the discussion.

[mistermann]

Do you have a kind of "What has been seen cannot be unseen" feel about this? For me, once I noticed this behavior in people, I now see it constantly, and not just with politics, but with any idea that supports the categorization of humans. And I think it's particularly sneaky, because it seems like people who do it perceive their thinking to be logical, due to it containing logic, which is a similar error.

I wonder if there is a way to fix this problem, kind of like a software patch for the nodes in a cluster. In this case though, the nodes seem to be resistant to patching, even if they might desire it...like there's some sort of other software (or something) preventing it.

[contravariant]

That "cannot unsee" feeling you have seems like the best remedy to me. Though it's tricky to bring up, if you're not careful you might be perceived as part of the imaginary group with it's imaginary infuriating argument.

[mistermann]

I don't get much remedy from the feeling, mainly curiousity!