Exclusively against white men would be more like it, one has to love the self-victimization of the most priviledged group of people in human history.

Historically speaking, it is common to argue that a group of people is super privileged in order to create the justification for atrocities. Just look at 20th century totalitarian leaders.

I prefer the liberal-democratic approach of ensuring rights for all instead of making decisions based on who is most privileged. There's no way to calculate privilege objectively, and the idea is inevitably wielded for political purposes.

Fully agree on the liberal-democratic approach. Hell, if you extent, just to pick a really controversial topic, adoption and full marriage rights to gay couples, rights I have myself, you are not taking anything away from me.

The important difference is so between calling a group priviledged and a geoup being priviledged. And men held power for most of human history, white men in particular since European colonialism became a thing. Women' right to vote is a fairly recent thing, the 1970s in Switzerland for example. Or bot requiring the husbands approval to take a job in Germany. The list goes on and on. White men habe been, and still are but less so, priviledged. Some men have a problem with loosing some of those priviledges so, a sentiment easily abused by demagogoes and populists (I put Musk in the latter group, more of an industrial / capitalist populist but a populist none the less).

In a sense the youngen falling into right wing extremism and islamistic extrimism have a lot in common, more than either of those groups like. But we digress, I think.

Regarding Starship, good for them to launch again. Good on the FAA to insist on high standards. Now we'll see how the launch on Friday goes.

> calling a group priviledged and a geoup being priviledged.

Group based reasoning is ambiguous in English.

When you say a group is privileged are you talking about the mean? The median? The peak? Every member?

Because you could easily have a situation where every person in power is a member of X group while the median member of X group has less power than the population as a whole.

There's also proportion of the total population to consider. If there were a group that only has 1% of the positions of power but every single member is in a position of power then is this group privileged or not? They can't control policy...

And there's also to what extent people in power actually push for the interests of the groups they are supposedly members of as opposed to the interests of the subgroup they're part of.

Ah, yet another discussion nased on semantics! As I don't want to use neither a dictionary nor linguistics, you win.

I'm not trying to "win", I'm trying to introduce readers to a useful tool to add to their toolkit for reasoning. A reminder that there's a class of potentially important ambiguities around groups in our language.

If it matters, this tool is also pretty useful for dismantling racism.

By most metrics Jews are more privileged (wealth, income, education, rate of murder, representation in positions in power) than white people in the West. And yet there is also genuine discrimination and hatred towards them.

(Also, you are somewhat out of date, e.g. white British boys currently have worse educational outcomes than girls or immigrants)

Anyway, you're very much missing the point by focusing on one example.

OP stated that many of the rigjt see discrimination, based in race and sexe, against white men. As I ahve yet to call those same people out discrimination against anyone else, I started with "Exclusively...".