Description: Attempting to broaden the criteria for inclusion in an ill-famed group or associated with a negative label to the point where the term's definition is changed substantially to condemn or criminalize a far less malicious or deleterious behavior.
Logical Form:
Person A is accused of bad behavior X.
Group Y traditionally does not include individuals with bad behavior X
Person A is said to be a part of group Y for bad behavior X.
Person A is accused of bad behavior X.
Label Y traditionally does not include bad behavior X
Person A is given label Y for bad behavior X.
Example #1: Tony does not agree that every black person in America should be compensated financially for the history of slavery. Therefore, Tony is a racist.
Explanation: The term "racist" is an extremely pejorative term that has traditionally been associated with those holding beliefs of racial supremacy—the belief that one's race is superior to other races. By expanding the definition to include "those who don't agree with policies that benefit another race," we fallaciously equate the behavior with the label's or the group's far more malicious roots. Not only does this unreasonably characterize the person who is against the policy, but it also waters down the meaning of "racist" to the point where traditional racists are unreasonably seen more favorably because the term "racism" has been expanded to include a spectrum of far less malicious behaviors.
Example #2: Suzie and Patty went on a date. Patty told herself and her friends that she was not going to have sex on the first date, but she did anyway because she was caught up in the moment. The next day, Patty said that Suzie was very seductive, and Patty couldn't resist her advances. Patty's friends convince her that she was raped.
Explanation: Patty's friends' goal was to show sympathy to Patty. They did this by giving her victim status and criminalizing Suzie's behavior by unreasonably viewing Suzie as a "rapist." Universally, if Suzie's behavior is accepted as "rape," the definition has radically changed, which not only demeans victims of "traditional" rape by associating them with those who were seduced by their date but conflates actual rapists with those who are just seductive.
Example #3: Ricardo had a hamburger for lunch. Antonio, Ricardo's vegan friend, argues that he is a murderer.
Explanation: "Murder" is traditionally defined as the unlawful killing of another human being. A cow isn't a human being, killing a cow isn't unlawful, and Ricardo didn't kill the cow he ate. It is unreasonable to put Ricardo, a guy who at a hamburger, in the same category as Jeffrey Dahmer, a guy who ate his human victims he killed. Antonio is using the term "murderer" in a fallacious attempt to associate a similar level of malice with Ricardo's behavior.
Exception: See the appeal to definition. Terms change and evolve as do criteria. What makes this a fallacy is a) the definition is changed substantially and b) for the purpose of condemning or criminalizing a far less malicious or deleterious behavior.
Fun Fact: This is not unlike the "everyone gets a trophy" phenomenon where the (implied) definition of "winner" is changed substantially to include all those who lost as well ("you're all winners," says the coach). This may be good for lifting spirits, but it is antithetical to reason.
This is an original logical fallacy named by the author.
