Hey guys, I don't know how to explain this, but I'll try

For example

>Person 1: *says something*
>Person 2: That's sexist
>Person 1: That wasn't sexist
>Person 2: Yeah it was
>Person 1: How was that sexist?

It doesn't have to be sexism, that was just an example. You could replace sexism with racism.

Is this some sort of fallacy? Or is this what we call a lateral attack or something?

I hope you guys understand what I'm asking.

>>1531096 (OP)
circular reasoning, maybe?

>>1531097

If someone tries to claim racism, and then the other says, how was that racist?

When someone goes, "What is and isn't racism?"

What is this concept actually called?

I don't know if i'm explaining it enough, but what I remember some time ago, is that someone told me, that this is called a "lateral attack"

>>1531096 (OP)
ipse dixit AKA bare assertion fallacy

>>1531101
it might be related to Socratic fallacy?
"the view that using a word meaningfully requires being able to give an explicit definition of it"