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.