zlacker

For what it’s worth, that’s not an example of the motte-and-bailey fallacy. It’s a simple denial and does sound plausible – though I agree that the sentiments expressed by both DiAngelo and the training seem similar.

>>Anthon+(OP)
I see what you mean, but I do think it's a case of motte-and-bailey. The flow is generally as follows:

1. Make statement X that implies action Y should be taken.

2. Someone takes action Y, citing X.

3. Deny that your usage of X implies Y.

And this is extremely typical of woke rhetoric. In the present case, it's summarized by "Coca Cola didn't have my permission to use my ideas", with the implication that the idea was somehow used incorrectly.

Perhaps there's a better term, but it resembles motte-and-bailey to the extent that it involves playing on ambiguity to retreat to a more defensible position.