That’s literally the thesis of a very popular book that appeared on a bunch of corporate reading lists in 2020: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibram_X._Kendi

I think the point is that, while the book was popular, one doesn’t just get to redefine a word using a new opinion.

The entire premise is ludicrous but it’s shocking how many just adopt that line of thinking without any critical thought.

“If you’re not actively fighting against illegal rhino poaching, you are a literally a poacher. It’s not enough to simply “not poach”. You must actively go around physically stopping other poachers.”

Point being you can’t just pick one pet issue and proclaim that anyone who isn’t actively involved in irradiating that issue is necessarily complicit in the issue. There are just too many causes one might be interested in.

There is an example that always comes to my mind regarding this “logic”, and which I think used to crop up from other commentators around this. It’s potentially even more powerful since it comes from the other side of the political fence: The beginning of The War On Terror (™), and “if you aren’t with us, you’re with the terrorists”. This is exact the same manipulative fallacy. However, pointing this out would need to assume those using it are good faith actors, whereas I’d suggest this argument is evidence of bad faith