So I'm a logic idiot. Philosophy-wise I tried to read "A Very Short Introduction to Schopenhauer" once and I didn't make it through - but I have gone through a bit of education so not a total idiot generally (at least I hope...).

Anyway, I've noticed a pattern on Reddit recently, and I was wondering if there was a term for it. The example where this came up recently is for a card game, where the company involved is discontinuing old sets of it and doing a "refresh" so to speak (I won't bore you with the details but, go look in my post history if you're interested). Anyway, conversations go like this:

• I think this new feature is good.

• Here's a list of the state of the art in this space that it has an edge over.

• Here's a thing that's no longer relevant (it's been discontinued), and here's how I subjectively considered it to work previously, that I'm providing as a frame of reference (this is probably like 5% of what I've typed out).

• And to close, I think this new feature is good for reasons XYZ.

Now, what I'm finding will happen is people won't talk to me about the new thing I'm trying to talk about, or about the state of the art in that space. Instead they hyper-fixate on the small detail I provided as context (which they'll say I got wrong), and this is the only thing that gets talked about. If I don't respond to this point, it looks like I'm trying to dodge a supposed flaw in my point, so I'm obligated to if I want to have a conversation - but the vast majority of the time it's hardly even related.

Is this a straw man (picking a small tangential detail, and responding to that instead), or is it an ad hominem attack (essentially saying because I don't know the small detail well [which usually isn't even the case, it's just I didn't furnish it with as much detail as I could, as I didn't think it was going to be dwelled on], I'm an idiot and the rest of what I'm saying isn't deserving of further thought), or something else?

I mean technically, it is a point I've put out there, and a point that is debatable - but it's quite far from what I'm looking to talk to people about. Maybe I should stop generously providing what I believe is useful context around conversations, because then there's less to pick apart?

I'm finding recently this is such a common way people talk to each other on Reddit that I can very rarely have a good conversation in my hobby/interest communities. If there is a term for this specific brand of (what I want to say is?) a logic fallacy I'd be grateful to know, because these days I'd rather just cite that and see if they change tact in the next comment (and if not just block them).

Thanks in advance Logic Heads (or whatever you call yourselves, haha!). If there is a better sub for this, redirect me and I'll repost - but I do think the problem I'm asking about here is one of logical fallacy personally (you'd know better than me!).