Today's fallacy: Persuasive definition.
This is a fallacy that you've most certainly encountered but didn't know the name of. It is very common in political discussions (like most fallacies for that matter).

It consists in giving a slightly unusual definition of a loaded term, to "sneak something" under that definition.

As an example, consider the statement:
"If you remain neutral in an unjust situation, then you are the oppressor."

Here "oppressor" is a loaded term. Most people consider oppression to be something bad and do not want to be labeled as an "oppressor".

The dictionary and usual definition of "oppressor" is [1]:
"a person who uses power or authority in a cruel, unjust, or harmful way ".

The dictionary and usual definition of "neutral" is [2]:
"not engaged on either side".

It is clear that it does not follow from the definitions that an "neutral" person is also an "oppressor".

The objective of the statement is to propose a different definition to the term "oppressor", but it does not do so in a clear manner. It "sneaks" something under a loaded term to "scare" people into accepting the new definition.
A persuasive definition is analogous to "well poisoning" but it works for words and ideas instead of people.

The use of the "persuasive definition" is a flaw in the argument. Like all other fallacies it doesn't imply that the conclusion is incorrect, just that the argument is.

According to wikipedia[3] the term "persuasive definition" was introduced by the philosopher Charles Stevenson as part of his emotive theory of meaning.

Other examples are:
=> "Abortion is murder";
=> "Prostitution is paid rape";
=> "About three other examples I had thought of but forgot.";
=> "Feel free to post more examples in the comments."

[1]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/oppressor
[2]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/neutral
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persuasive_definition