> You might quibble with a few of them but you might also (classic example) quibble over the exact definition of "chair".
This is only the case if you substitute "white" with "European", which I guess is one way to resolve the ambiguity, in the same way that one might say that only office chairs are chairs, to resolve the ambiguity about what a chair is. But other people (e.g. a manufacturer of non-office chairs) would have a problem with that redefinition.
It depends on where those people expressing their disdain/hatred are, and their own cultural views on who is considered to be 'white'. In Russia, for example, white supremacists do not accept Caucasians as white, and they may be targeted with hate crimes.
For example: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/2018_Teh... (Iranian)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Turkish_... (Turkish)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/Naderspe... (Nader was the son of Lebanese immigrants)
Westerners frequently misunderstand this but there are a lot of "white" ethnic groups in the Middle East and North Africa; the "brown" people there are usually due to the historic contact southern Arabia had with Sub-Saharan Africa and later invasions from the east. Itβs a very diverse area of the world.
You might quibble with a few of them but you might also (classic example) quibble over the exact definition of "chair". Just because it's a hairy complicated subjective term subject to social and policital dynamics does not make it entirely meaningless. And the difficulty of drawing an exact line between two things does not mean that they are the same. Image generation based on prompts is so super fuzzy and rife with multiple-interpretability that I don't see why the concept of "whiteness" would present any special difficulty.
I offer my sincere apologies that this reply is probably a bit tasteless, but I firmly believe the fact that any possible counterargument can only be tasteless should not lead to accepting any proposition.