For one thing, I disagree with the current application of "white privilege", though I do believe white people have certain societal advantages.
You agree whites have privledge due to race, but you dissagree with it's current application? What does that mean?
The only way 99% of people use the term is in pointing out disparities. They do exist, and you even agree that they do. If nothing else the disparity in arrests, police shootings, random searches, convictions, and various other disparities that relate more strongly to relate to race than class or income issues show that.
Pointing those disparities out is not a bougoise liberal plot.
But there is intersectionality involved there that makes the whole thing grossly generalistic, counterproductive, and vulgar.
People often discuss how poverty intersects with this issue. Racial issues can perpetuate poverty and poverty perpetuates itself and racial bias.
Just because some college students who don't really understand the world or these issues say dumb things doesn't mean the vast majority of thinkers that support the dreaded "identity politics" don't.
To me the whole concept amounts to latte-sipping bourgeois liberals looking for people to share the blame with - using the white working class as a shield.
Pointing out racial disparities doesn't blame the white working class for them. These issues are systemic and only the fringes of identity politics movements would look at any particular white person and blame them for creating this.
Imagining some group making it all up to attack the white working class is a conspiracy attitude the distracts and detracts from these very real issues.
If you want to argue that class issues are more important that's one thing, but don't discredit these very real racial issues with assertions about it being an attack on white working class people.
They, latte liberals, are the ones to be overcome. And they stand alone.
I need to start drinking more latte's, I didn't realize they were such a diabolical drink.
Secondly, I have a problem with the idea that only white people can be racist. I think that's a very irresponsible thing to be saying, knowing that what people understand by racism is simply racial prejudice. So it's a very irresponsible thing to be putting out there.
Nobody but the extreme fringe or college nitwits believe this. Claiming most people in identity politics movements believe this is the same as claiming all feminists believe all heterosexual sex is rape. Sure you can find someone who will say it but most people think they are crazy.
There is no denying that the biggest problem in society right now is a divided proletariat. And NONE of the methods used by the so-called "left" to advance "social justice" advance social justice.
It's almost like they aren't even marxists and don't share your world view and thus have a different set of values and conception of what social justice would look like.
It's not the prerogative of a communist to defend neo-liberal heresies ridden with ID politics and vulgar collectivism. To be a communist is to fight for the working class, to unite the working class, and to empower the working class towards the end of mass-mobilization and a general strike.
No one is asking you to support the heresies of dissagreeing with you about how the world works. That doesn't delegitimize these racial issues, nor does it absolve you of admitting they exist and helping to deal with them in a practical way instead of complaining about how they are actually attacks on white working class people.
You don't have to agree with me on class issues to help push for policies that will improve millions of people's lives.
And when the shit goes down, liberals will get a bullet too.
I'd hold my breath but I have marginally helpful liberal heresies to push in the real world that will actually improve people's lives. It takes up to much time to play into your fantasy of murdering me.
My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders.