It's really more of an inversion. No true Scotsman is "No Scotsman would ever (commit murder)" "What about (Scotsman that committed murder)?" "Ok, no true Scotsman would commit murder"

Whereas this follows the form more of "Murder is bad" "I dunno, a lot of Scotsmen commit murder" "Ok, but no true Scotsman would commit murder"

It's the same (annoying) assertion, but the fundamental argument is about the value of murder, not the category of "Scotsmen," so it's not the same extremely obvious fallacy of redefining the literal topic at hand whenever a counterexample is presented.

It's no true scotsman if you just resolve their indirection: no true scotsman would care about syntax, because a true scotsman is someone who doesn't care for such a thing - otherwise, they're people who GP finds to be of low value, and thus their opinion doesn't count, as they're no true scotsman, not true programmers.

It's why I called it an outright textbook example: it's an appeal to purity, where purity is determined in a circular way - the very definition of the no true scotsman fallacy, as far as I could find and understand it.