I should never have downloaded The Guardian app

[a completely inoffensive name]

When SJWs are talking about privilege, they virtually never refer to individual privilege. Their notion of privilege is actually a group-based construct. So what any particular individual thinks makes no difference.

So we ignore the individual? We are not saying you need to be quiet because you are white, but because of whites in general?

If whites are in power, and whites are the majority, and whites prefer other whites (in a broad sense) to non-whites, then there you have it: privilege. Now, as Subo liked to point out, privilege is contextual and fluctuates quite a lot

So who is the arbiter of when and how much privilege has occurred? Is this a list that all need to satisfied, or any one condition? Non-hispanic whites are no longer a majority in the southwest. If the California State Assembly and Senate members reflected the current demographics, are California whites suddenly less privileged than the rest of American whites?

but that doesn't change the fact that, as an aggregate, whites have more privilege than anyone.
When you see it in those terms, this should go from objectionable and tendentious to really really obvious.

It is easy to recognize that whites (in America) are on average better off than the average non-white (with the possible exception of Asian-Americans). But how this necessarily leads to the policies advocated by SJW's make no sense.

[Ironside]

So we ignore the individual? We are not saying you need to be quiet because you are white, but because of whites in general?

So who is the arbiter of when and how much privilege has occurred? Is this a list that all need to satisfied, or any one condition? Non-hispanic whites are no longer a majority in the southwest. If the California State Assembly and Senate members reflected the current demographics, are California whites suddenly less privileged than the rest of American whites?

It is easy to recognize that whites (in America) are on average better off than the average non-white (with the possible exception of Asian-Americans). But how this necessarily leads to the policies advocated by SJW's make no sense.

Privilege often comes with massive blinder. If you never felt systematically negatively treated because of race/gender/sexual orientation/class, you're probably having privilege on it. Active positive treatment is more complex, since it can have different sources. The spoiled upper class is different from a woman taking advantage of flirting and courting in a place were women are rare because of general hostility.

I'm not sure were your stand on this really are, because it often end up with the "right to be rude/a jerk/an asshole without anybody complaining" and "since I don't see a problem (and most of the time aren't expected to see the problem either, since you aren't expected to be affected), there is no problem so stop talking about it, because it causes the problem".

While you do have the extreme ones that demands more, it mostly boils down to "don't be rude", "think before you speak" and "not everyone has lived like you, so they might have different experiences and thus some words are more offensive to them than to you". And the cases were some minority group are going to claim that this neutral word is now offensive is quite rare. Half to fully insulting words are way, way more common.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I don't browse the Guardian as much as I used to. I think they are trying to hard to be at the forefront as what they see as being some sort of gender revolution. Its getting a bit silly and they are starting to look like a parody of themselves. I'm sure I read titles along the lines of:

"A Feminist Perspective on the Ukraine Crisis"
"Are Gender-Specific Determinative Pronouns the Burqas of the West?"

I don't take it so seriously as a paper anymore.

[Ironside]

I don't browse the Guardian as much as I used to. I think they are trying to hard to be at the forefront as what they see as being some sort of gender revolution. Its getting a bit silly and they are starting to look like a parody of themselves. I'm sure I read titles along the lines of:

"A Feminist Perspective on the Ukraine Crisis"
"Are Gender-Specific Determinative Pronouns the Burqas of the West?"

I don't take it so seriously as a paper anymore.

Not from the author of the original article. Which are why I'm sort of wondering. Sure some of the rhetoric needs you to know and understand things like privilege, but I'm not seeing anything extreme with the article.