Oh right. I probably confused parent posters words for .. I don't know. Isn't he or she (less likely) exactly saying this? That RMS was targeted because he is white and male and not because of what he did and said? How is that not thinking along the lines of conspiracy? Exaggerated, yes. But strawman? Where exactly?
When the Stallman thing was still fresh, I saw people online argue that it _didn't really matter_ whether Minsky actually did anything wrong, or whether it was inappropriate for Stallman to defend him. There are too many old white guys in prominent positions in tech, and reducing their numbers is a good thing. Sure it'll mess up Stallman's life, but whatever, that's a small price to pay for progress. In other words, explicitly: it's okay to target him, even if the accusations aren't correct, because he's an old white guy.
I think that's something people really believe. I also think it's unfair, and shouldn't be tolerated. And yet...I don't believe anything _close_ to the argument you put in OP's mouth (and by extension, mine). No, white guys aren't even close to the most persecuted people on the planet--and yet, that doesn't make them immune from persecution in all forms, either.
So: you attempted to rebut an argument by reducing it to a ridiculous caricature of itself. That's called a strawman.
But they usually don't have much power or influence.
Implying that he was targeted because he was white and male, implies that those crazy people have a lot of power and influence - which means conspiracy. Now sure, conspiracies can be true, but you maybe know how they say, extra ordinary claims, require extra ordinary evidence.