<i>&#x27;The first proposition is then not a non sequitur at all: it is simply a restatement of the original poster&#x27;s view that certain people ought to be more aware of their in-grouping bias.&#x27;</i><p>No, it isn&#x27;t a restatement. You make the (new) claim that &quot;being more aware of one&#x27;s own bias&quot; creates another in-group, but it <i>does not follow</i> that this is your opponents position. You made no argument as to <i>why</i> this would be the case, either.<p><i>&#x27;Even if the proposal had not been explicitly limited to &quot;21st century intellectuals,&quot; this explicitly calls for the differentiation of people into &quot;those who are aware of their in-group bias&quot; and &quot;those who are not aware of their in-group bias.&quot;&#x27;</i><p>This is <i>your</i> 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 <i>doesn&#x27;t</i> claim that in-grouping <i>itself</i> is to be avoided, or that it is avoidable at all. Your proposed in-group that mandates awareness of (various) in-group biases would <i>also</i> call for awareness about its own biases. This is not paradoxical, at all.<p><i>&#x27;I believe this explanation of how my reprhasing correctly restates the original proposition adequately addresses the &quot;straw man&quot; point, as well.&#x27;</i><p>It does not. In your &quot;straw man&quot;, you misrepresent your opponents view in quite strong terms, accusing them of &quot;condemning&quot; those who do not belong to an in-group that <i>you</i> (not your opponent) defined. This accusation holds no ground whatsoever.