The article The Kirby Frame by Anthony Moser (Moser's Frame Shop) makes a similar argument, though it’s a bit more muddled, I think.

“But if you do that, you are stepping into their context. You are now having a discussion about the value of autistic people. When you negate their frame, your arguments are shaped like their arguments: if they say autistic people are costly, you cite economic statistics about work. You are responding as though they are acting in good faith, as though they are your audience, as though they might change their mind if you prove that what they’re saying isn’t true.”

The article includes 10 excellent examples, like the ones below.

“Frame: This public service costs too much, it isn’t making money
Negation: It’s actually very efficient and it could make more money
Kirby: THEY ARE ATTACKING THE VERY IDEA OF PUBLIC SERVICES

“Frame: ICE is targeting criminals
Negation: No, they’re targeting ordinary people!
Kirby: THEY’RE WHITE SUPREMACISTS DOING ETHNIC CLEANSING which is why they’re saying everybody who isn’t white is a criminal

“Frame: Food stamps are used by undeserving / Black people
Negation: Actually many people on food stamps are deserving / white
Kirby: THEY ARE STARVING PEOPLE ON PURPOSE. They are using racist tropes to justify it bc many people will find that persuasive. Everyone deserves to eat”