It's such a common phenomenon. Today I spent time looking at a particular example of this, so of course this characterization draws my attention now. The situation is: Marginalized group has suffered literal violence and demands that the problem be addressed. Person from dominant group (a random person, probably not someone who was directly addressed) inserts themself into the discussion and responds: How dare you insult me and imply that I am the source of the violence. Your rhetoric itself is violent toward me. In that response, the person in the dominant position is dissecting whatever the marginalized person said (to paint them as having endorsed "violence" against the dominant group or system or the status quo situation) and persistently refuses to acknowledge any actual violence the marginalized group is experiencing (i.e., the reason why the marginalized person spoke up in the first place). Thereby the dominant person implies that the violence in our shared world is asymmetric and coming entirely from the marginalized group. They will also say (per the example I was looking at this morning) that the marginalized person completely misunderstands the meaning of the word "violence," because they're complaining about "violence" when in fact nothing physically violent has or ever will happen to them and instead they themselves are perpetrating real true violence with their words against the dominant group. Yes, this assessment is self-contradictory and hypocritical.