'The first proposition is then not a non sequitur at all: it is simply a restatement of the original poster's view that certain people ought to be more aware of

'The first proposition is then not a non sequitur at all: it is simply a restatement of the original poster's view that certain people ought to be more aware of their in-grouping bias.' No, it isn't a restatement. You make the (new) claim that "being more aware of one's own bias" creates another in-group, but it does not follow that this is your opponents position. You made no argument as to why this would be the case, either. 'Even if the proposal had not been explicitly limited to "21st century intellectuals," this explicitly calls for the differentiation of people into "those who are aware of their in-group bias" and "those who are not aware of their in-group bias."' This is your claim. Even if it was accepted (which I will do for the sake of argument), you did not make an argument on how this logically invalidates the original proposition, which merely calls for awareness and doesn't claim that in-grouping itself is to be avoided, or that it is avoidable at all. Your proposed in-group that mandates awareness of (various) in-group biases would also call for awareness about its own biases. This is not paradoxical, at all. 'I believe this explanation of how my reprhasing correctly restates the original proposition adequately addresses the "straw man" point, as well.' It does not. In your "straw man", you misrepresent your opponents view in quite strong terms, accusing them of "condemning" those who do not belong to an in-group that you (not your opponent) defined. This accusation holds no ground whatsoever.