Here’s a pattern you’ve probably seen:
- Racists/nazi shows up and says racist/nazi things
- Get called out for it and/or banned
- They claim they are unfairly banned “for disagreeing.” They completely leave out the part about them being a racist nazi.
You know, that move. I’ve seen it more times than I can count and I bet you have too. They call disagreement with nazism “opinions you don’t like”, leaving out the nazism part. Any way of framing disagreements with them while subtracting out the actual content of what they say.
It’s so common that I think it deserves a word. I know there are generic descriptions: e.g. “being a troll”, but I think something specific to this particular behavior deserves its own word. That way it can just be identified and dismissed for what it is and not argued with.
In a convoluted way, it’s kind of the slippery slope fallacy.
Their “argument” usually is that free speech needs to be protected and that if you don’t allow everyone to exclaim any ridiculous, inhumane non-sense, then you’re limiting free speech and by tomorrow no one’s allowed to say anything anymore.
But yeah, that specific slippery slope argumentation definitely deserves its own pedestal for how shit it is, in every way.