I’ve seen this happen in some arguments. But two that stand out are politics and firearms.
People who are very pro firearm sometimes obsess over pedantic details, then think their obsession with pedantic details means only their opinions are valid and nobody elses opinions are valid.
For example you may call an AR-15 an assault rifle and they’ll get upset and say ‘only fully-automatic 5.56 are assault rifles. Semi automatic 5.56 rifles are not assault rifles’ even though for real world purposes, 99% of the time when people refer to assault rifles and assault rifle bans we all know they mean semi automatic 5.56 or 7.62 rifles, not fully automatics.
Or with politics. Some people get haughty and say ‘America is a republic, not a democracy’ as if that invalidates every belief and opinion of anyone else.
Is there a name for this logical fallacy, where you have obsessions with pedantic details and claim anyone who doesn’t pass all your pedantic purity tests isn’t allowed to have opinions you disagree with, or their opinions are inherently invalid due to failing the pedantic purity tests?
I think another discussion that falls under this umbrella is so-called Sovereign Citizens. These clowns will show up in court and argue the most punctilious of details to try to claim that the court is illegitimate, including because there should (or maybe should not be) fringe on the American flag hung in the courtroom.
A red herring is a point that distracts from the main argument rather than actually refuting it. They are often made unconsciously, because some points are more difficult to ignore than others. The OP refers to pedantic red herrings.
Wiki also has an article on trivial objections, which typically form in a barrage:
There is a sort of hipster-purist thing where people sort of tie their identity into the notion that they are the only one who truly understands some genre of thing; everyone else is just trying to be like them. Of course you like their second album. You would. I liked them before they were famous.
Well it isn’t really a logical fallacy (nitpickery) when you think of it properly (dismissal of the opponent’s point of view), it is rather a psychological trick (diversion) that shows what an unfortunate personality you have (ad hominem), but going with it for the sake of the argument (condescending haughtiness) I would start by deconstructing it into its simple constituent parts (running warm for a gish gallop), I hope you can follow so far, it is quite evident really (proof by intimidation).
It occurs to me that we are talking about varieties of gatekeeping, at least in the modern internet definition of that term - aggressively deciding who is or (and more commonly) is not allowed to do a thing or express a view about a thing.
I would say it is a combination of Appeal to Authority and the Excluded Middle. Since I know more than you on the topic I am the authority and am therefore correct. And since I am correct, you are wrong.
Nitpicking, hair-splitting and logic-chopping (a new favorite term) are all good; there’s often an element of sealioning as well.
Speaking of Dopeian debate tactics - is there a name for the one used when a poster presents several well-sourced, evidence-based articles in support of a proposition, but opponents seize on one particular cite that makes a questionable claim, in an attempt to dismiss the entire argument?