I’ve always found it interesting in such discussions we have several people insisting there’s no such thing as “white culture” because of the “diversity” within “whites”(surfers, southerners, bikers etc.) but no one ever makes similar claims about there is no “black culture” because of the diversity within the “black community”.
Maybe that’s what he was trying to say - there’s not really a single white culture, but many jumbled together. Which is of course true for any culture the more you break things down.
I do make exactly that claim. (And I’ve already alluded to that in this thread more than once.)
Looking through the author’s list of privileges it would appear that the vast majority of them are simply the consequence of being part of a majority group, and would be true pretty well anywhere for any majority.
The author’s conclusions - that these privileges are a major source of unfreedom and that their existence undermines “the myth of meritocracy” - are not supported. That would depend entirely on how significant these privileges actually were, in comparison with other factors.
It is no wonder people are not reacting with horror and distress the author appears to believe appropriate when it is pointed out to them that they enjoy such unearned privileges as " I can, if I wish, arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time" (the very first on her list of unearned privileges). Can’t imagine how exactly one would work towards ending that particular blatant unfreedom, other than (say) making a majority not a majority.
Yes, to further make my point, look at her list. Take the first few items:
Sure, blacks shouldn’t have to deal with that stuff. But does this mean that to remedy that, whites SHOULD be subjected to it? Should we eliminate white privilege by harassing whites when they shop, or making sure neighbors are nasty to them more often? Of course not.
While I’m sure it does happen, I’m also unconvinced that these are so prevalent that they amounts to a common event for blacks or other minorities, either.
You can stop oppressing people and treating them unfairly without oppressing someone else or treating someone else unfairly. Really, you can. 
It’s not necessarily a mistaken sense of what’s normal, nor is it necessarily racial. I knew a white couple who explained that they named their daughter Schuyler (the original spelling) rather than a phonetic Skylar/Skyler/etc. because they didn’t want to name her “the stripper way.” There was also this letter in The Economist, from May 22, 2008, referring to those experiments wherein the researchers send out identical resumes with different names:
"SIR – Blue-collar white applicants with names like Billy Bob and Brandi would probably have suffered the same fate as a Jamal or Lakisha when pitted against an Emily or Greg, something I thought would be obvious to those who designed the study.
I recently attended a ceremony at a university and was amazed at the recurrence of traditional first names; a plethora of Anns, Elizabeths, Johns and Stephens (many of them Asian-Americans) with nary a Staci, Crystal, Cody or Elvis in sight. Parents express their aspirations when they name their children, and usually get what they expect."
As invested as I am in the class struggle, I don’t deny that there is a set of prescribed (and proscribed) behaviors that the middle classes take to heart. There’s “what’s normal,” and then there’s “what’s successful.”
How do you explain this:
But I don’t oppress anyone.
You don’t seem to understand what “privilege” actually means. It’s not about an oppressor, it’s about those who benefit from it. So as a white person, I have an advantage due to other people’s racist behavior, or societal norms (I hate that term but I don’t have a better one) even if I didn’t ask for it. That’s the point of the idea of privilege.
Obviously, if I were offered something out of oppression - for instance, someone had a “whites only” sign on a restaurant - I would refuse it. I wouldn’t patronize that restaurant. But privilege is about getting things you don’t realize are about race or sex or whatever. In many cases, it’s about getting things that everyone deserves, but not everybody gets. And that latter kind of “privilege” was what I was talking about - that to restore rights and dignity to blacks doesn’t require taking away rights or dignity from whites, nor is it just.
Blacks use marijuana more?
I mean, that’s a distinct possibility. We can’t assume that it’s all due to blacks getting picked on. Not that I’m ruling that out, of course. Just saying that you need another number - the percent of whites and blacks who use pot - for comparison.
My point is that it’s not about taking away rights from others to ensure that everyone has equal rights. Whether you asked for the privilege or not, you benefit from it, whether you’re able to do something about is an entirely different thing and I don’t think anyone is asking YOU to do anything, except possibility your GUILT.
P.S. I’m not sure if I read your post right - sorry if I didn’t. Maybe you were agreeing with me.
We know that Blacks don’t use pot anymore than Whites. Your response illustrates why these things go on, people are in denial, they don’t want to see what’s happening.
But that’s my point too. I think we agree.
What you don’t seem to realize is that taking away something from whites, or males, or whatever is exactly what is being endorsed by many who talk about “privilege.” That’s what I was responding to in the quote you posted:
We don’t necessarily have to lessen men’s status in order to bring women’s status up.
We do?
How?
I’m not saying otherwise, I’m just asking for the data. If you know it, show it.
No, I DO want to see. That’s why I asked for that data.
I’m not denying anything. There’s nothing to deny yet because you haven’t shown me the data.
When women’s status is increased, their status in relationship to men is higher than what it was because the status of men was unjustly high to begin with. Just because you’re stronger than me and I become as strong as you, doesn’t mean you’ve been weakened but it does mean that you’re not stronger than me.
Here’s a link:
It’s not like this information is hard to find.
Race as a biological concept is unsound. As a social concept it’s still viable.
But that zero-sum game often fails in the real world.
Look (again) at one of the real-world examples of white privilege from your link:
Assuring that blacks can live where they want and afford it doesn’t require that we lessen the ability of whites to live where they want and to afford it.
Now, if you think whites feel their “status” is diminished because they can no longer look down on blacks and feel superior because they have something blacks don’t, then maybe that’s what you’re talking about. Sure, take away that “status.” But that assumes that whites feel that way in the first place. When you’re talking about policies to get rid of white privilege, like ending housing discrimination, you need only elevate blacks, not lower whites. It’s not like whites will have to give up their homes so blacks can move in or something.