The various strands of critical theories apply the standard methodology of knowledge (avoid relying on assumptions, and whenever possible, seek to test, or at least tie them somehow to something external) - while adding in the wrinkle "what if we cannot even fully recognize our own assumptions?” (Some, but not all, go even further: ‘what if we ARE our own assumptions, and can never set them aside…?”)

Dogmatic thinkers may assert that "all X people are victims," but that is the diametric opposite of critical methodologies. More often, a Crit saying something along those lines may be setting up a hypothetical argument, or taking an assertion ad arguendo: "If we assume that all X have an attribute of Y, can that tell us something about Z?" Some Crits use terms like 'victim' for one or more variables, but the method tends to be less about saying that all of one group of people have any specific attribute (again, that's dogmatism, the precise opposite of criticism), and more about questioning the questioner.

Odd to think that the 'critical legal studies' movement, or any of its offspring, are hypocritical, when the movement itself assumes 'hypocrisy may exist, and if so, how can we discover it?" Dogmatists don't bother with such subtlety.