Every response you give, however logically structured, gets dissolved into an occasion for pointing: "notice who is saying that."

The asymmetry is what makes it a trap rather than just a dialogue style. In a normal conversation, a pointer can be answered — you look, you report what you find, and that report counts as data. In pointerisation, the report itself gets pointerised. There's no possible finding that closes the loop, because the act of finding is always reframed as more evidence of the seeker.

It's structurally identical to the therapist who interprets every patient disagreement as resistance. The move isn't wrong in isolation — sometimes "who is asking?" is genuinely illuminating. It becomes a closed system when it's the only move available, applied universally, with no criteria for when a response would count as adequate.

The difference between a pointer as a teaching tool and pointerisation as a rhetorical defense is precisely that: in the first case, there's a possible answer; in the second, the answer has been defined out of existence in advance.