Neither of those would be a strawman, though. One would be a faulty generalization and the other is airing a grievance (could maybe be a bad faith argument?).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization

Though I get that these days people tend to use “strawman” for anything they see as a bad argument, so you could be right in your assessment. Would be nice to have clarification on what they mean.

Hmm, if the purpose of either is so an "easier" target can be made, I think it could still qualify as a straw-man; I think an accusation of straw-manning is in part a accusation of another's intent (or bad faith - not engaging with the argument).

> Hmm, if the purpose of either is so an "easier" target can be made, I think it could still qualify as a straw-man

Good point.

> I think an accusation of straw-manning is in part a accusation of another's intent (or bad faith - not engaging with the argument).

There I partially disagree. Straw-manning is not engaging with the argument but it can be done accidentally. As in, one may genuinely misunderstand the nuance in an argument and respond to a straw man by mistake. Bad faith does require bad intent.