Instead, I post some intellectual fodder by W. J. T. Mitchell, which is balm to my currently hypersensitive nerves:
The pluralist is quite happy to have his convictions exposed as dogmas so long as those dogmas are regarded as axioms of ethical and political idealism, so long as they are keept at a discreet distance from questions of power and real social relations, The moment it is suggested, however, that the pluralists' de jure tolerance for multiple truths is actually a way of rationalizing de facto domination and intolerance, the moment pluralism is exposed, as Herbert Marcuse put it, as a strategy of "repressive toleratoin," then the pluralists' happiness vanishes. The very idea that the dogmas of liberal toleration could ever be a cover for tyranny seems to great a paradox to contemplate; it could only be the strategy of a Machiavellian hypocrite, concealing his greed for power behind a mask of benevolence."Pluralism as Dogmatism", Critical Inquiry 12.3 (1986), 499
And Mitchell concludes: "What we need to show are the strategies by which the pluralist fools himself into thinking that his heart is pure, his principles uncorrupted by power relations" (499).
Which all reminds me a bit of Tony Judt's spot-on disassembly of the myth of Louis Althusser in an essay from which I can't quote right now cause John has taken the book to Albion.