Not all types of argument deserve this treatment.
Demonstrating that you fully understand an argument better than your opponent, and being able to charitably represent them, just makes it all the more devastating when you knock them down.
If you really disagree with an argument vehemently, then you should steelman it. Strawmanning makes you look dishonest and fragile, only capable of attacking a weakened form of your opposition.
If someone who has really abhorrent opinions tries making their argument, then you are letting them win if you strawman them.
I like to think I have a pretty good idea of why people - whose ideas I find repulsive - believe what they do.
In my mind that means I have the capability to change their mind. The risk I take is that they can change mine.
Afraid there might be some really good reasons they're not worth talking about?
Steelmanning in practice may just be indistinguishable from trolling. The lazy redditor wants to look smarter than other redditors, by making a convoluted argument that no one believes in. It's intellectual posturing dressed up in "good faith".
A point of steelmanning is that your assumption that this person thinks an entire group of people is inferior might be incorrect.
Your grand plan will fail the moment you finally get to the "incorrect" part. Cause there you dealing with additional feeling of loss you yourself just caused.