From wikipedia : To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the “straw man”), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
Somewhat comparable is attacking the actual argument of a fringe group and suggesting directly or indirectly that a much larger group actually believes that argument.
Is there a term for that technique?
I don’t think there’s one - it’s somewhat remotely akin to hasty generalization but not really, especially if it’s deliberate. Also related would be cherry-pickingand participation bias but again, neither of those is exactly the same as what you’re saying, IMO.
If we need a name, I nominate “Squeaky wheel fallacy”
ETA: damn, looks like that’staken.
As directed against the fringe group, there is no fallacy. As directed against members of the larger group who are not in the fringe group, I think it is still a straw man.
I wouldn’t call it a strawman because, at least as it’s described, it doesn’t say that the larger group has made a superficially similar claim. It’s a faulty generalization. Basically, you’re assuming that a property of a subset is also a property of the larger group.
IF you’re using that approach to refute an argument of the general group by countering the fringe groups version of that argument then, yes, it is a straw man argument.
Otherwise, it’s just a roundabout attack on the credibility of an arguer (another deception technique).
This is probably closest to what I’m describing except that it’s not really a faulty assumption…its more of a predetermined tactic to try to tar the larger group.
“Squeeky-wheel” (if it weren’t already taken) doesn’t really describe it either IMO since the fringe group could just as easily be ignored.
Sounds more like some strain of Guilt by Association to me.
Missed the edit… Association by the line of argumentation, not the group itself, in that case.