I wish I were still in college...

The counter to that would be that you can't be racist towards whites, because racism is about power and whites have always had the power.

Of course, power in a situation is flexible. A teacher has power over their class. A sheriff has power over the people in their town. A guy holding a gun has power over whoever he's pointing the gun at.

But y'know.

I recently got lectured about being part of the "white male oligarchy" and being personally guilty of a "long history of oppressing women and minorities." This was on an RVing forum in response to a comment I made about doing most of the heavy lifting because my wife has medical problems? WTF? When I pointed out that I was a voluntarist and told her to look it up, and that there was a word for those who formed their opinion of people based on color or sex, she claimed she wasn't bigoted because all white men are guilty by default.

She has since disappeared from several of the RV groups I belong to. People in the real world know bigots when they see them.

This "guilt by association" thing rubs me the wrong way, too.

'Course, one could argue that the same sorts of judgments are routinely and historically passed on members of non-majority groups and they simply have lacked the voice--by and large--to stand up for themselves without some amount of risk, whereas Don and I can freely express our disdain with no potential costs, because we're white men. Thus, "white privilege."

See? I could totally ace this course...

Anyway, while plenty of people might see my analysis as perfectly valid and reasonable, it doesn't make it true at a specific, individual level. It really doesn't. And I think that's the problem that white privilege theorists have: they think their ideas/analyses are unassailable, logical, and true.

You could totally ace that course.

I have always had a problem when people try to apply statistics to individuals. Like what that woman did to Don. Like what you did with "white privilege theorists."

I'm not sure what that woman did was due to guilt-by-association. It sounded more like assumption of motive. But either way, to hear Don tell it, she sounds like a jerk.

Unless Don left something out... some intended-to-be humorous comment about "the weaker sex" or some such. I'm just making shit up, but I wouldn't put it past him.

And if that were the case, the woman could have misconstrued, or found the joke unfunny/offensive, or something like that... which would make her less of a jerk, though still in need of some perspective, perhaps.

Point being that no one benefits when the worst is assumed and offense is taken. Both "sides" can do better, I think.

Or maybe I really should stop posting here and go write fiction.

Okay, I believe you, but just, what if, you didn't see her as a lost cause, or an enemy, once she offended you by calling you names. Is she threatening your livelihood, your social status, your peace of mind? If not, then why snap back? Why not make an honest attempt to explain/explore the disconnect? 

I guess I'm veering into obnoxiously bleeding heart territory here, but look at how Sarah Silverman responded to a dude who called her the c-word.

I'm just saying. That woman was somehow offended by what you said. You were offended by what she said. And, absent someone stopping to analyze the exchange without the offense factor, so it goes, ad infinitum. And then, the offense caused by the "other side" is justification for doubling down on our opinions, including deciding who is an asshole and who doesn't deserve our time of day (as we post on the internet to people we've mostly never met in person). It's very convenient to lump someone into a pre-established category (sexist; leftist; etc.) because they've offended or judged us, because of course a sexist/leftist would do this.

I mean, at least try to bridge the gap, as opposed to a tit-for-tat retort? It goes both ways, of course, but someone has to start. People want to be understood; maybe you could have changed that woman's MO, or at least made a dent in it, if you'd taken a little bit more time. Then again, maybe not. It's a thought. ETA: Sorry for expounding so much on your encounter as my example; I really don't mean you at all; I mean people. I'm in that sort of mood, I guess. Tomorrow I'll likely be cursing humanity in its entirety. 

The problem is people who talk about privilege often use it as a way to silence and shame those that they perceive as having a privilege. As if somehow they share some sort of collective guilt.

So take DWB. A black person talks about how they can get pulled over in a white neighborhood without breaking any traffic laws. Okay, that's a problem. But when you say my driving in that same neighborhood and not getting pulled over is white privilege that makes it sound as if I'm doing something wrong by not getting a ticket for not breaking any traffic laws.

My foster daughter talked to me about a video about privilege. It showed a bunch of people lined up for a race. Winner got $100 in cash. Before they could run the race, they were told to take a step forward if they had both parents still together. Another if they have support from both parents. Another if they've never worried about where they're next meal would come from. Or faced homelessness. Etc, etc, so forth and so on.

The result was that some had a hefty lead on others. Now the narrator made the point that in the end, they all have to run the same race. But you know if you all started at the same spot, you'd get smoked by some of the people at the back.

Look, there's nothing wrong with being away of things you have going for you, for being grateful that you have parents that are there to love you, support you, that you never have to worry about where a mean is going to come from, or where you'll be sleeping the next night. The problem is when somehow you're made to feel as if you're doing something wrong because you have those things.

Such as the advantage of having parents that read to you as a child.
www.nationalreview.com/article/417997/professor-if-you-read-your-kids-youre-unfairly-disadvantaging-others-katherine-timpf

I'm thinking also of that professor with the progressive stacking. She'd look out on her class and decide the pecking order based on race and gender. So my foster daughter, who has not had an easy life, wouldn't be top on her list to call on because she's white, but at least she's female.

My foster son, who is both male and white, isn't comfortable raising his hand, and also has had to work hard for his grades under what's pretty bad conditions would be seen as privileged, so much so that she'd call on him as a last resort.