then "white male" has no meaning, unless you mean "white male and privileged" in which case it's redundant and racist to have the "white male" part

Did you actually mean 'redundant'? If so, you first said 'white male' has no meaning. For it to be redundant in the 'white male and privileged' then it must also mean 'privileged.'

I certainly agree on the racist point.

He said, unless you mean...privileged. In THAT case, it's redundant.

The problem is that lots of people don't get that nuance, and then carry the thought along thinking it really does literally mean people who are white and male. Memes morph as they're passed along, and a complex sociological understanding of abstract "whiteness" has no chance of surviving into the popular understanding.

So for each person like you who means "white male in the abstract sense", there are ten people in the movement who literally hate white males for running the world.

When we want to talk about privilege we should say just that: "privileged people". Don't shit on arbitrary subsections of the population.

Really, just use words that describe the concept. "White male" has a very specific inherent meaning. Don't use it to describe something completely different, like racism or sexism.

lots of people don't get that nuance, because that nuance doesn't generally exist and was just made up now to win the argument. "white male in the abstract sense" ffs!

Oh, definitely. I don't believe in the religion myself. I have heard that cop-out before though: "but we're only talking about the successful white males". I think the term for the argument technique / fallacy is motte-and-bailey (you might be aware but for the benefit of anyone reading):

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-bric...

upboat for a brilliant article there!