This is the typical lunacy of the Left. It goes like this in this case:
The Jan 6 riot was an insurrection. (The fallacy here is you have no proof other than your deciding it was)
If you question that, in any way, or simply don't accept that as your position on this--to include not particularly caring about the issue, you are an enemy of the state.
This is just a logical fallacy (In this case an argument from fallacy or a fallacy fallacy.--that is, you start with a fallacious premise and draw conclusions from that) in order to facilitate shutting down all non-conforming positions.
This is not what a fallacy fallacy is. A fallacy fallacy is a false claim of fallacy (in other words, calling a legitimate argument a fallacy). It is most often used as a technique to discard an argument improperly. The fallacy you are looking for here is called an extension fallacy, sometimes called a definitive fallacy or definite fallacy. This fallacy occurs when someone uses a fallacy to define a conclusion, then assumes that conclusion as a proof and used later as a predicate. The initial fallacy of defining 'insurrection' via a redefinition fallacy is being used as a proof (via a circular argument fallacy), and then used as the predicate to following arguments (the definitive fallacy). Yes, it is often used to try to shut down any discussion of the original fallacy or any later fallacies formed from it. There is no valid argument in the chain.
In logic: (?A->A)->B This equation is invalid since ?A->A is used as a proof to try to prove B, otherwise known as a chain anchor violation (the chain has no origin). The chain may be anchored by a leading 'if' forming: ?(?A->A)->B. This form make the equation a legal one.
This form is the type of argument that simply extends an argument of faith as an extension of that argument based on the same faith. Every religion can legitimately use this form. It takes the proof of B away and extends the Argument of Faith to B. In other words, it is also a circular argument which uses another circular argument as the predicate, for you can simplify the equation to ?B->B by the reduction of form. (?A->A) simply can be represented by B. This is again, of course, just the circular argument, or the Argument of Faith.
Thus, if you say Jan 6 was just a riot, the Leftist would say You are attacking democracy--whatever that means--
The word 'democracy' has a definite meaning. It is government by popular vote. There is no constitution, no representatives, nothing. This is an unstable for of government that usually dissolves into an dictatorship or oligarchy (dictatorship by committee). Sooner or later (usually sooner!), one faction or another will gain control and there is no removing it. Since there is no constitution, nothing stops conversion to oligarchy. Oftentimes that oligarchy will fall further into a dictatorship under a single king or emperor.
Democracies are self destructive. Athens dissolved into an oligarchy. The most recent attempt was CHAZ, in Seattle, which dissolved into an oligarchy. The winning faction became quite brutal in putting down opposition. This is what finally caused the Seattle police to step in and close it down. The six block area was filled with enough trash and filth to fill two garbage trucks, and it had to be disposed of as hazardous waste due to the biological waste (shit on sidewalks and in the park) and drug needles everywhere.
So much for the latest experiment in democracy.
The United States was organized as government by constitution. This is called a republic.
There are nations that call themselves democracies, but ain't.
There are nations that call themselves republics, but ain't.
These two terms come from Greek and Latin.
and are therefore an enemy of the state because you don't accept that it was an "insurrection." There's no debating this with the Left, and the Left has ZERO probability of changing anyone's mind on it. So, instead they seek to shut down all discussion that doesn't conform to their delusion by using though terminating cliches (You are attacking democracy!), just as they always do.
This fallacy is a correct call. That is exactly what it is.
You called the fallacies on his argument, but one of them was an incorrect call. It's simply a different type of fallacy. Your basic premise for your call out of fallacies is sound.