Raven, I first want to say that I am
not interested in an argument, so if this is going that direction I'd rather not waste my (or your) time. I think you are not understanding what I mean by the idea of being "threatened by universality," so I will try to explain.
I don't have to assume that you are talking about me to know what you are saying is offensive, or to be offended by it. Nor do I have to assume that you mean offense.
Perhaps, very honestly, you slipped an ad hominem into your reasoning without realizing you were doing so. But, as you have chosen to extend it rather than retract it......? You tell me.
First of all,
it was not an ad hominem. I was not attacking or insulting anyone - not only was the phrase not addressed towards anyone in particular, but it wasn't even an insult or an attack. Nor was I trying to belittle anyone by saying that they are "threatened by universality," which I would say applies to me in certain contexts.
Second of all, you didn't quote the whole sentence, which was:
"For whatever reason, some people seem threatened by the idea of universality, perhaps because of fears that it inherently equates with Borg-like loss of individuality and conformity."
If universality equates with Borgism, then that's a very legitimate fear, no? I would even say that
most people are threatened by the idea of universality on some level because we, in this day and age, are extremely individualistic - our sense of individuality is very precious to us and I would argue that on a deep, existential level we fear losing it, because in some ways it equates with death.
Does this make better sense now? Do you see how this was not an attack, therefore your assertion below is irrelevant?
Do you really imagine that people don't agree with you, not because they believe you are wrong, or are even simply not convinced that you are right (an agnostic position), but, rather, because they are threatened by the idea of universality? Really?
Of course I don't imagine that people disagree with me because they are threatened by universality! What do you take me for, a moron?

I am saying that people shy away from ideas of universality--especially when they are clothed in stereotypes and categorization, and thus often for very valid reasons. But sometimes they (we) mistake a "healthy" universal for an "unhealthy" one, and thus react negatively (and fearfully) unnecessarily.
EDIT: Btw, this is the 4th post of the thread:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/5471721-post4.html
Can you point out where this fellow seems threatend by the idea of universality, please?
Cute. But yeah, I am threatened by the idea of universality when it takes on Borg-like tones: "Prepare to be assimilated!" Comform or die, this is the One Way that things Must Be Done; etc etc.
But I referred to that thread because I talked about the dynamic of people (including myself, mind you) being defensive when no offense was intended, that's why I said that your reaction is an example of what I was talking about in the 4th post. You were being defensive about something that wasn't even an attack.
Anyhow, I apologize for not being clear in my meaning. I hope that this post better clarifies what I was trying to say.