Supporting a false refutation is not being generous, it is being biased. It is being unfair to the initial speaker.
Steel-manning a refutation does not equal supporting that refutation. In fact, steel-manning entails criticizing the original refutation, at least implicitly.
However, when a claim is plausibly intended to be a hyperbolic version of a reasonable claim, pointing out that the hyperbolic version is a straw man, without addressing the reasonable version, is mostly just poisoning the discourse.
(This charge doesn't apply to you if you sincerely believed that MixedNuts was non-hyperbolically claiming that literally everyone has scorn heaped on them in the community under discussion, or that MixedNuts would be read that way by many readers.)
I oppose your influence in this context for the aforementioned reasons.
However, when a claim is plausibly intended to be a hyperbolic version of a reasonable claim,
The point that you think is reasonable is still a straw man.
Another month has passed and here is a new rationality quotes thread. The usual rules are: