Are Kafka Traps a specific type of Poisoning the Well?

Denying that you are a racist is proof that you are a racist.  This is a Kafka trap because denying that you are a racist is proof that you are a racist.  If you admit that you are a racist you are a racist there too, #itsatrap.  

Are Kafka Traps a specific form of Poisoning the Well?  If so are some Poisoning the Well fallacies not Kafka traps?

Thanks

It's more like an implicit self-sealing argument because it sets itself up such that one cannot refute it without their refutation being used as part of a meta-narrative that their thought process is problematic.

I guess it has its use as a form of poisoning the well if you are trying to make the person arguing with you look bigoted rather than address their concerns. For instance:

Jordan: There is no such thing as 'systemic racism' in society.

Kelsie: You only believe that because your whiteness allows you to ignore racial injustice. (Arguably, this is also causal reductionism - suggesting someone only believes something based on a single aspect of their person - and bulverism as it is implied that Jordan's POV is wrong and then Kelsie explains why he is wrong, rather than showing it.)

Here, Kelsie is trying to make Jordan look as racist/ignorant as possible while ignoring his point, in this case, poisoning the well.

EDIT: Steelman time.

A lot of these 'kafka traps' can be rewritten in a more charitable way

P1) X is obviously racist.

P2) Only a racist would deny something so obvious.

P3) You denied X

C) You are likely to be racist.

This looks like affirming the consequent but could be a valid inductive argument if we accept the first two premises.