The "reasonable argument" for privilege isn't that you grew up rich or whatever, but rather that there are negative assumptions made about others that are not made about you. For example, one of my best friends is a doctor, who moved into hospital administration, and from there into financial advising and investing. He's very wealthy and successful. And if he's pulled over by the cops, he has to worry that they'll assume he stole his nice car. He has to deal with people crossing the street to avoid walking by him, or clutching their bags with fear in their eyes. Why? Because he's black.

Not having people assume you're a violent thug because of the color of your skin is privilege.

My wife is a high-level expert in e-commerce, and has been a professional analyst in the field for 15 years. I've watched men carefully explain to her how credit card processing works as if she was an idiot, gently correcting her when she disagrees or contradicts them.

Not getting mansplained about your own area of expertise is privilege.

Does this help?

Thanks for giving examples of what you consider "white male privilege" to be.

In earlier comments I wasn't asserting that being a white male has no advantages in the software industry. I was curious about the author's reasoning as to why attempting to counteract it was a moral imperative for white males.

It's not that white males have an advantage, it's that others have a disadvantage. The word "privilege" to describe this phenomenon was a terrible branding decision imho - it's hostile and negative, and alienates those most in need of understanding. But it's the word we have, and the phenomenon is real.

> I've watched men carefully explain to her

Can you give the context under which this happened? Who where these people? Why did they not think your wife was capable?

This is actually the biggest issue I have with the intersection of social justice and the technology industry. The concepts of "white privilege" and "stereotype threat" are borne of the non-falsifiable, non-reproducibility "science" of sociology departments everywhere.

Here on HN, where people ostensibly require the weight of evidence to accept a concept, I would expect nearly 100% of people to reject this evidence-free, baseless emotional concept immediately out of hand. Yet somehow, this community of rationalists buy into handwaving without any critical thought.

We nerds appear to be just as dogmatically religious as those whose ideas we reject on the basis of lack of evidence. A little saddening.

> This is actually the biggest issue I have with the intersection of social justice and the technology industry. The concepts of "white privilege" and "stereotype threat" are borne of the non-falsifiable, non-reproducibility "science" of sociology departments everywhere.

I wasn't suggesting that because moral claims are metaphysical in nature, they're automatically wrong or meaningless.

Just that because no such arguments are offered at all, the best the author can hope for is that the argument either strikes the listeners as obviously true, or prods the listeners into further consideration which leads them to the same conclusion.

My point was simply that the only chance he has of convincing some of us (including me) of his assertion is to actually do the work of presenting a decent argument, which he hasn't done.