kafkatrap

A sophistical rhetorical device in which any denial by an accused person serves as evidence of guilt.

Jill said Jack was paranoid, and when he told her he was not she just nodded knowingly. It was a perfect Kafkatrap.

One very notable pathology is a form of argument that, reduced to essence, runs like this: "Your refusal to acknowledge that you are guilty of {sin, racism, sexism, homophobia, oppression …} confirms that you are guilty of {sin, racism, sexism, homophobia, oppression …}." I've been presented with enough instances of this recently that I've decided that it needs a name. I call this general style of argument "kafkatrapping", and the above the Model A kafkatrap. In this essay, I will show that the kafkatrap is a form of argument that is so fallacious and manipulative that those subjected to it are entitled to reject it based entirely on the form of the argument, without reference to whatever particular sin or thoughtcrime is being alleged.

To employ a Kafkatrap against (someone).

The aim of the kafkatrap is to produce a kind of free-floating guilt in the subject, a conviction of sinfulness that can be manipulated by the operator to make the subject say and do things that are convenient to the operator's personal, political, or religious goals. Ideally, the subject will then internalize these demands, and then become complicit in the kafkatrapping of others.

Progressive bullies seem to delight in kafkatrapping, as it's their preferred strategy of attack in Social Media Land. So you should be prepared for it.

Alternative letter-case form of Kafkatrap.