The poster made a comment using imprecise generalities that was intended to imply specifics. When taken as a set of generalities, it seems a lot softer and less politically pointed than it is. I treated what they said as what they wanted to say in order to expose what they meant.
A strawman in the common usage of the term involves changing the argument to a weaker version that is not within the text you are arguing with. If you want to suggest that this is fallacious, you could call it a tu quoque fallacy, which was the point of the post.
However, when you want to claim the moral high ground to forgive/soften a political assassination, it does matter that you are being a hypocrite about it.
A strawman in the common usage of the term involves changing the argument to a weaker version that is not within the text you are arguing with. If you want to suggest that this is fallacious, you could call it a tu quoque fallacy, which was the point of the post.
However, when you want to claim the moral high ground to forgive/soften a political assassination, it does matter that you are being a hypocrite about it.