You reference common life experiences.

When people disagree over something, they can pare back to common life experiences and examine assumptions, until either they find a difference in what they believe the facts are (at least potentially solved by evidence), or until they find a difference in a matter that is of subjective opinion (at which point they understand why the other disagrees), or until they get weary of trying (at which point nothing is resolved, but they may at least understand each other better). The problem of infinite regress seems in practice to be only a theoretical one: people's chains of justification simply aren't that long. The problem of mutual incoherence of specified sets across people also seems in practice to be only theoretical: we have a lot of common experiences.

Isn't this what you're doing with giving your examples? If you are not reasoning objectively, what does it even mean for me to have "misunderstood" something?

Critical theory (and especially CRT in modern form) has a serious problem with generating and handling objective knowledge. Epistemology is hardly settled, but even with very minimal requirements like "we would like 'true' to mean something stable over time rather than something that varies with time", it is hard to see how critical analysis could rein itself in before breaking those.

I did read everything I ordered (and thank you for the references!). I reference Horkheimer because he was arguably primary, because I have the most direct work from him, and because he seems to me to care the most about traditional rationality. However, I was not any more impressed by Eclipse of Reason than by Traditional and Critical Theory. I preferentially quote the latter because it's available online, which is an advantage in discourse where you may want to give evidence that your quote is accurate and not taken out of context. If you want me to give examples from EoR where it fails to consider the epistemological consequences of its outlook, you'll have to (1) ask, and (2) wait until I'm near my copy.

Keep in mind that I'm not satisfied merely with what critical theorists or others wish the consequences would be of their ideas. I'm interested in all the logical consequences. I would sound quite different if I trusted their characterizations alone.

As for Christmas Eve: what does that have to do with anything, save raise the specter of an ad hominem argument? For your information, I was ill, and therefore happened to have a lot of time. (It may have reduced the quality of my writing somewhat.)