Unmasking a concept
To refuse to engage with a concept on its own terms - as to its validity or lack thereof - but to instead inquire about its nature, its origin, its function, and its purpose.
Is this concept natural or engineered? Where did it originate? Towards what end? Who is it being deployed by? Why? How does it coordinate action or exploit Russell Conjugation? Etc.
E.g.: “Microaggressions” exploit Use or Mention Abuse to include in the concept that [what “microaggressions”] refer to are aggressions and thus should be treated the same way. That is, of course, precisely the point under debate but it makes asking the question “Are microaggressions aggressions?” seemingly nonsensical when it is anything but.
E.g.: “Hate speech” is an engineered concept, used as Memetic warfare so that people who want to censor but have to pay tribute to American freedom of speech norms can do both. “We’re not censoring, we’re just ‘combating hate speech’”