I see this happen all the time where people take words like “racist” and “sexist” which are words that can exist in both a morally neutral and morally charged form and use that deliberate ambiguity to try and push a point that is not valid.
As a contrived example, someone might say that an action is “discriminatory” if it systematically provide benefit to one class of people over another and then show that job interviews are discriminatory since it provides benefit to more qualified people. Thus, since job interviews are discriminatory and the eradication of discrimination is a worthy goal, we should fight to eliminate all job interviews.
The logical fallacy comes from the shift in definition between discrimination in the first and second uses of the word.
Places where I’ve seen this happen are debates like whether only dating people of a certain race is racist or whether certain beliefs are stereotypes of a race.
Anyway, is there a name for this kind of logical fallacy?