I've never heard of "the invincible ignorance fallacy" and suspect a Wikipedia joke. There's no point in naming sheer refusal to listen to reason as an error in logic.
Invincible ignorance is an old term from Catholic moral theory and it's a concept worth having. Invincible ignorance is ignorance that isn't your fault, because you couldn't possibly have learned the thing you don't know, or could only have learned it by unreasonable efforts. Your ignorance was invincible, to you: you had no way to beat it.
Vincible ignorance, in contrast, is a failure of due diligence. You didn't know something that you could have known, and should have.
We'll probably have to write off vincibility of ignorance as just another archaic term that has lost its meaning, but we're still going to need a handy name for the concept. Lots of people get upset, say stupid things in public, and even do stupid things, because they don't know things that other people around them have managed to learn. Are the ignorant people then to blame for their ignorance, or are they trapped in their ignorance bubbles through no fault of their own? Are they at least more sinned against than sinning?
I was a teenager before it was cool.
