Acting like it's an accepted logical fallacy is ridiculous. It's a term ESR made up because people kept rightly calling him a sexist and racist and he didn't like it and threw a tantrum.
Seems it's a perfectly accepted logical fallacy; and the only people who deny it are the sjw crowd largely because it is such a favoured tactic within their ranks.
Still not seeing it.
And desperately clinging to any page-not-found of whatever website you can find to display it isn't exactly the most secure display of debate.
Nobody but libertarians looking for excuses for racism use that term, deal with it.
> Using a kafkatrap against an opponent you can't beat in debate when they have just pointed out the tactic is probably ill advised; perhaps try something else; Ad hominem or motte and bailey for example.
Allow my to quote from one your trusted sources: https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/academic_writing/...
> Ad hominem: This is an attack on the character of a person rather than his or her opinions or arguments.
You don't know who coined "coined", but they may well have been a racist. Are you going to stop using it if so? Does that mean it's no longer useful for communication? Are you going to investigate every word on the chance it might've been and strike those from the lexicon?