The White Guy Problem

[Nice Squirrel]

http://bittergertrude.com/2014/12/12/the-white-guy-problem/

And the definition of “good guy” changed. It was no longer just a public declaration that you weren’t bigoted and a lack of active oppression of women and people of color. Being a “good guy” now meant engaging in a difficult and complex process of understanding privilege, including your own privilege, acknowledging that, and understanding how racism and misogyny are created and disseminated, how much of that we’ve internalized, and how we work to end that. Suddenly a stated belief in “equality” and a simple lack of active oppression– both relatively easy to understand and believe you can accomplish (despite the fact the we now know this is much more complex than originally thought)– were no longer enough. Many white people had the courage and/or resources to meet these new challenges head on. Many had to slowly come to understanding. Most of us are still struggling with these issues and our place within them every day. But some white people, including these men I’m discussing, whose personal narratives and self-conceptions, like all of us, rely on being “the good guy,” are LIVID. The definition of “good guy” changed. It requires understanding and accepting something they do not have the will and/or ability to understand, and they are angry. They feel betrayed that “good guy” went from easy to difficult, was taken away from them while they weren’t looking, and is something to which they feel entitled, but is in reality something they now have to earn.

I will admit to be in the bolded group.

It is a good read.

- - - Updated - - -

Mose specifically:

Since all white American-born men have lived their entire lives in a culture that always put their needs first and was structured around their narratives, the idea that someone else’s narrative could be just as important, or, possibly, for even just a moment, more urgent and important, is, for some white men, literally impossible to understand. This subset of white men cannot comprehend that idea as anything but a MASSIVE injustice against them. They’ve been first in line for so long THEY NEVER EVEN KNEW THE LINE EXISTED, and they believe that being asked to wait in line like everyone else is bigotry against them. This subset of white mencannot comprehend that ending street harassment is a more urgent issue than their desire to approach women whenever and however they like; that actual rape is a more urgent issue than their fear that one day someone might possibly accuse them of rape; that the killing of unarmed Black men (and BOYS) is a more urgent issue than their fear of Black “thugs”; that the killing of unarmed Black men is a more urgent issue than a few broken windows.

This subset of white men cannot comprehend that the expression of the pain and anger of a long-oppressed group of people is a more urgent issue than their need to be seen as “a good guy.” It takes a truly mind-blowing amount of self-absorption, entitlement, and privilege to answer “White people are hurting us; please help make it stop” with “NOT ALL WHITE PEOPLE.” What this response is saying is: “My need to be seen as a ‘good guy’ is more important than your pain. Please direct your attention to that and confirm that I am ‘good’ before I will consent to recognize your pain.” It’s the social equivalent of demanding that someone compliment your bitchin’ Camaro before you agree to roll it off their foot. OR HEAD.

 

[Nexus]

They feel betrayed that “good guy” went from easy to difficult, was taken away from them while they weren’t looking, and is something to which they feel entitled, but is in reality something they now have to earn.

This part is bullshit. No one is obligated to jump through unreasonable hoops to be a "good guy". I suppose if you want to supplicate yourself to unreasonable people and their demands you can take on that obligation.

My problem with the white privilege meme is mainly the people pushing it. They aren't after greater understanding or equality. I can acknowledge there are aspects of being white that are advantageous ie dealing with police. But from my own personal life when someone I know that my disadvantages outweigh the privileges. I grew up on welfare with a disabled mother and no other family helping us. I went to the same predominately black schools as the disadvantaged African-Americans. I had no jobs or opportunities waiting for me once I became an adult.

So when I hear people tell me to check my privilege and accept that other groups should be given a affirmative action spot before me I have justification to be upset by that.

 

[Nexus]

Since we cross posted I adress this.

Since all white American-born men have lived their entire lives in a culture that always put their needs first and was structured around their narratives, the idea that someone else’s narrative could be just as important, or, possibly, for even just a moment, more urgent and important, is, for some white men, literally impossible to understand. This subset of white men cannot comprehend that idea as anything but a MASSIVE injustice against them. They’ve been first in line for so long THEY NEVER EVEN KNEW THE LINE EXISTED, and they believe that being asked to wait in line like everyone else is bigotry against them.

More bullshit. I noticed they said ALL white American- born men. I certainly stood in lines at the food bank as a child. And extremely long lines at the charity hospitable when I was very sick. Since their premise is so very flawed we can discount their flawed conclusions.

 

[dystopian]

I'm of two minds about this sort of thing myself.

It's certainly true that white men are, statistically speaking, far more advantaged than any other group on the planet. And it's certainly true that we could stand to be more aware of that fact and try to be more understanding towards the situations of others. But I too get a tad annoyed by the tone the narrative has taken on these past couple of years among some social activists. I think the quoted paragraph in the OP is a perfect example: it just completely misses the mark. Rather than the kind of advocacy that can change minds, it just reads like an angry rant about how there's people who (shock) aren't activists for their pet cause. Do I disagree with their cause itself? Of course not. I'm not particularly inclined to dedicate my life towards it (nor should I have to or be expected to), but I generally agree with it. And I generally agree with its advocates. But when the advocacy is less advocacy and more bitter accusation (Even if it's qualified by stating it's only about *some* people, which is kind of an ironic thing to do if one also responds with dismissal to the 'not all men' thing) then my instinct like that of most people, is going to be to just walk away from the crazy sounding person and get on with my life.

If you frame the debate in accusatory tones, assigning blame (however well deserved), then *of course* you're going to get a blowback. Duh. If you spend your time telling ANYONE that they're entitled, or privileged, or take your pick... then *of course* they're not generally going to react positively. If you're a feminist who wants to convince people to help strengthen women's rights, then *don't* let your advocacy sound like a crusade against men. If you want to make things better for black people, don't go telling white people everything's their fault. Yes, men certainly take the brunt of the blame for women not being on equal foot. And white people certainly take the brunt of the blame for the position of black people. But focus your talk on the ways in which women and black people are disadvantaged; show how people can help change things. But whatever you do, keep sounding positive. Don't lay blame, because that's going to backfire.

And if that isn't enough to convince one to reframe the debate, then consider that it really *isn't* up to, say, white men to make things better for black people. It's up to us to not be dicks and to get out of the way of black people lifting themselves up to an equal level. The last thing they need is white people coming in to be their 'saviors' and solve their problem for them. So then why frame the debate to be about what *white* people are doing wrong? Just politely tell them to step aside and then focus on what black people are doing *right* and how they can get better at it.

Yes, I'm sure it's quite annoying to do, even insulting to be told to smile when you're the one trying to make things better. But remember; you're the one trying to change things. If you want to convince people to change, you have to suck it up and know how to play to people's sympathies. A bitter-sounding activist on the offensive might score agreement from a few people who are already feeling guilt, but it's going to do very little to win them the overall vote. Positivity breeds positivity, negativity breeds negativity. I don't understand why the latest brand of internet activists (on either side) hasn't figured this out yet.

 

[Bronzeage]

They feel betrayed that “good guy” went from easy to difficult, was taken away from them while they weren’t looking, and is something to which they feel entitled, but is in reality something they now have to earn.

This part is bullshit. No one is obligated to jump through unreasonable hoops to be a "good guy". I suppose if you want to supplicate yourself to unreasonable people and their demands you can take on that obligation.

My problem with the white privilege meme is mainly the people pushing it. They aren't after greater understanding or equality. I can acknowledge there are aspects of being white that are advantageous ie dealing with police. But from my own personal life when someone I know that my disadvantages outweigh the privileges. I grew up on welfare with a disabled mother and no other family helping us. I went to the same predominately black schools as the disadvantaged African-Americans. I had no jobs or opportunities waiting for me once I became an adult.

So when I hear people tell me to check my privilege and accept that other groups should be given a affirmative action spot before me I have justification to be upset by that.

First, it's never been easy to be a good guy. It's always been earned. There may not be a hoop, reasonable or otherwise, but one can look around their work place and see the "good guys" area distinct, but small percentage.

White privilege is like water to a fish. The fish doesn't see the water and when he's at the surface, has no idea how deep the water is below him. Not everyone gets the same amount of white privilege, but privilege compounds. A privileged white guy can also be born with family wealth privilege. That's an unbeatable combination. You missed out on that, which sucks. Your disadvantages only outweighed your privilege when compared to other privileged whites, but you still had privileges.

The only reason to be upset when someone asks you to check your privilege at the door is because you can't. You came in the door with your affirmative action and it's yours to use or lose.

 

[repoman]

The whole idea of anyone willingly ceding any advantage they have in this harsh world (that will get worse as resources dwindle and population continues to boom) is strange. Don't like white or rich privilege and you are neither then fight against it. Don't expect anyone to surrender it. And you have no right to be mad if people don't agree that white privilege dictates moral calling to themselves.

Are there Han Chinese living in XinJiang flagellating themselves over Han Privilege over the Uighurs?

 

[Metaphor]

This subset of white mencannot comprehend that ending street harassment is a more urgent issue than their desire to approach women whenever and however they like; that actual rape is a more urgent issue than their fear that one day someone might possibly accuse them of rape; that the killing of unarmed Black men (and BOYS) is a more urgent issue than their fear of Black “thugs”; that the killing of unarmed Black men is a more urgent issue than a few broken windows.

First, what people think is more urgent is surely up for discussion, or are we to take her word for it?

Second, even when people are addressing something that is less urgent than some other thing, that doesn't mean they're doing anything wrong and it doesn't mean they have to change what they're doing so that it conforms with what you think is more urgent.

I would say the fact that a billion people have limited access to potable water is a more urgent issue than fighting for a higher minimum wage, but if you choose to do the latter, I'm not going to tear your head off for not addressing the more urgent need.

Third, wanting to reduce false accusations of rape does not interfere with wanting to reduce rape.

This subset of white men cannot comprehend that the expression of the pain and anger of a long-oppressed group of people is a more urgent issue than their need to be seen as “a good guy.” It takes a truly mind-blowing amount of self-absorption, entitlement, and privilege to answer “White people are hurting us; please help make it stop” with “NOT ALL WHITE PEOPLE.” What this response is saying is: “My need to be seen as a ‘good guy’ is more important than your pain. Please direct your attention to that and confirm that I am ‘good’ before I will consent to recognize your pain.” It’s the social equivalent of demanding that someone compliment your bitchin’ Camaro before you agree to roll it off their foot. OR HEAD.

In other words, if you claim that you're not one of the white people doing it, that's evidence that you're one of the white people doing it.

I wouldn't engage with such a person. They're simply incapable of reason.

 

[Nexus]

Your disadvantages only outweighed your privilege when compared to other privileged whites, but you still had privileges.

This is false. Take for example Chelsea Clinton, by the stats of the white-male-privilege narrative she would be disadvantaged to me yet her career of floating from high paying consulting jobs one after another right out of college with a "useless" history degree shows the real truth. Her advantage of having powerful parents outweighed whatever female disadvantages society placed before her.

The only reason to be upset when someone asks you to check your privilege at the door is because you can't.

That's not the only reason another reason is because it isn't true and I'm being asked to let other people cut in front of me in line. I've already acknowledge I have privilege with police compared to black males. Try getting a SJW to admit women have privilege over men regarding police and the criminal justice system. But that aspect of privilege doesn't outweigh other disadvantages I've face in life.

You came in the door with your affirmative action and it's yours to use or lose.

An unsupported assertion about my life. Tell me what doors I was let in with affirmative action?

 

[dystopian]

I'd hate to have to agree with Nexus, but he does kind of have a point.

The thing about white, male, or any similar kind of blanket privilege is that it's never universal; something that some SJW's seem to forget. As white people, we statistically speaking have a much higher chance of having an advantageous position in society; and white *men* even more so. But that doesn't mean that just *because* you're a white man, you're inevitably going to be in a better position (and thus be privileged) than others; or be treated better by them a priori (another form of privilege). There are always outliers. That isn't to say we shouldn't level the playing field for groups that are statistically speaking disadvantaged (although it would be preferable if we could find a way to both efficiently and fairly do so by looking at individual circumstances instead).

So it's really not true that the only reason to be upset about checking your privilege is because you 'can't'. That's *a* reason, but hardly the only one. Arguably a much more important reason is the fact that the statement can only be made by making some rather far-reaching assumptions about you based on nothing more than shallow external facts about you. Obviously "you're black therefore you must be a thug" is a much more problematic and offensive assumption to make about someone, but that doesn't mean that "you're white, therefore you're more privileged than me/them" isn't also offensive in its ignorance.

On a less serious note, I've never been told to check my privilege, but if I ever am, I'd hope I could respond with the following (minus all the violence, perhaps):

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0C3IhWcJH0[/youtube]

 

[Bronzeage]

This is false. Take for example Chelsea Clinton, by the stats of the white-male-privilege narrative she would be disadvantaged to me yet her career of floating from high paying consulting jobs one after another right out of college with a "useless" history degree shows the real truth. Her advantage of having powerful parents outweighed whatever female disadvantages society placed before her.

The only reason to be upset when someone asks you to check your privilege at the door is because you can't.

That's not the only reason another reason is because it isn't true and I'm being asked to let other people cut in front of me in line. I've already acknowledge I have privilege with police compared to black males. Try getting a SJW to admit women have privilege over men regarding police and the criminal justice system. But that aspect of privilege doesn't outweigh other disadvantages I've face in life.

You came in the door with your affirmative action and it's yours to use or lose.

An unsupported assertion about my life. Tell me what doors I was let in with affirmative action?

As I said, a fish doesn't know they're in water. I wouldn't try to convince you that you have a privilege you can perceive anymore than try convince a fish he is wet.

What's a SJW? Single Jehova's Witness?

 

[dystopian]

What's a SJW? Single Jehova's Witness?

SJW stands for Social Justice Warrior, a particular brand of social activism with a reputation for being overly zealous, self-righteous, and unreasonable. They unfortunately tend to give the rest a bad name.

 

[rousseau]

The main issue that I see with the writing in the OP is the same issue that comes with most activist memes: it assumes that groups of human beings are rational and coherent.

Pointing your finger at white men and saying 'they' can't comprehend some concept makes no sense because 1) white men don't have a unified mind and 2) it assumes that somehow oppressive groups are actual conspirators, rather than another mass of dumb shits who are also just trying to get their hands on next weeks pay-cheque.

What it comes down to is that every group is inherently selfish, and until a person or group sees a real benefit in trying to make a difference, they won't. So the tendency in society is for situations to get really fucking bad before anyone is forced to act. The reason you don't see white people actively campaigning for minority rights is because it doesn't do them the slightest of good. It's not a conscious decision they're making, the point is they haven't been forced to make a conscious decision, so they aren't doing so.

This is human psychology, but those who are a part of activist circles are also not rational or coherent so they don't notice this reality. The end result is that people as a whole make haphazard, coincidental change as time goes by.

 

[Bronzeage]

What's a SJW? Single Jehova's Witness?

SJW stands for Social Justice Warrior, a particular brand of social activism with a reputation for being overly zealous, self-righteous, and unreasonable. They unfortunately tend to give the rest a bad name.

Seriously? I can take on a dozen of those by myself and have plenty of white privilege to spare.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

So to find a woman who has more privilege than a white male, we have speak in terms of Chelsea Clinton? And once you name Chelsea Clinton, the millions of women who are not Chelsea Clinton can no longer claim that white men have a white male privilege?

 

[Metaphor]

So to find a woman who has more privilege than a white male, we have speak in terms of Chelsea Clinton? And once you name Chelsea Clinton, the millions of women who are not Chelsea Clinton can no longer claim that white men have a white male privilege?

It was an example. And if you can't agree that Chelsea Clinton, who stands to inherit at least forty million and has a last name that will ensure her survival even if she stood to inherit nothing, is more privileged than the vast majority of men of any colour in America, then she would hardly serve as an example. If you don't agree that Chelsea Clinton has privilege, so much the less will you agree to examples where the privilege associated with one aspect (off-the-Richter-scale political and financial capital) outweighs any privilege disadvantage on some other aspect.

But perhaps it's true that some people cannot comprehend the privilege given to them. Jaden and Willow, despite being so untalented they make Melissa Rivers look like Joan Rivers, think they can control time.

But the rhetoric of privilege excludes talking about the privilege of anyone except White males (the heterosexual part, I've noticed, has now casually been dropped. Being a poof no longer gives you a get out of jail free card for the SJWs).

 

[AthenaAwakened]

So to find a woman who has more privilege than a white male, we have speak in terms of Chelsea Clinton? And once you name Chelsea Clinton, the millions of women who are not Chelsea Clinton can no longer claim that white men have a white male privilege?

It was an example. And if you can't agree that Chelsea Clinton, who stands to inherit at least forty million and has a last name that will ensure her survival even if she stood to inherit nothing, is more privileged than the vast majority of men of any colour in America, then she would hardly serve as an example. If you don't agree that Chelsea Clinton has privilege, so much the less will you agree to examples where the privilege associated with one aspect (off-the-Richter-scale political and financial capital) outweighs any privilege disadvantage on some other aspect.

But perhaps it's true that some people cannot comprehend the privilege given to them. Jaden and Willow, despite being so untalented they make Melissa Rivers look like Joan Rivers, think they can control time.

But the rhetoric of privilege excludes talking about the privilege of anyone except White males (the heterosexual part, I've noticed, has now casually been dropped. Being a poof no longer gives you a get out of jail free card for the SJWs).

Famous people who are not white males do not disprove or even dent white male privilege. It's like saying there was not male privilege in Elizabethan England because Elizabeth was on the throne and they named the times for her. I freely admit I have privilege. But college degrees, a body that doesn't need a ramp to get on the porch, and a bank account that's by no means Chelsea Clinton's, but it isn't in the red either, does not mean that white males in my social circle and even some below that rung on the ladder don't have privilege in relation to me.

And as for this discussion being only about white males, white males as a group are on top and therefore as a group have the most privilege. They are also mostly who post in this particular forum. Plus when you look at the problems that men have, like with child custody, those problems come from the policies and practices initiated by other men.

Would you say that Chelsea Clinton is more privileged than her father? That Melissa Rivers is a more powerful social reporter/commentator than Perez Hilton? How would you compare Mark Zuckerberg to Paris Hilton?

 

[Metaphor]

Famous people who are not white males do not disprove or even dent white male privilege.

But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying there are any number of sources of privilege, and Whiteness, I dare say, isn't even the best source -- being the offspring of those with extreme net worth is a far better source.

But the use of the term 'privilege' in any case is problematic. Let's say I have an advantage, compared to nonWhite people, in interacting with police. If the advantage is to be treated without prejudice, that does not mean that advantage came at the expense of nonWhite people. Prejudice against Black males doesn't help out White males. It makes everyone worse off. To start treating Black males without prejudice doesn't mean White males have to be treated with prejudice.

When focus is merely on one characteristic that may privilege an individual, a whole host of other characteristics is ignored. Is that fair? Why?

It's like saying there was not male privilege in Elizabethan England because Elizabeth was on the throne and they named the times for her. I freely admit I have privilege. But college degrees, a body that doesn't need a ramp to get on the porch, and a bank account that's by no means Chelsea Clinton's, but it isn't in the red either, does not mean that white males in my social circle and even some below that rung on the ladder don't have privilege in relation to me.

How are you defining your social circle?

And as for this discussion being only about white males, white males as a group are on top and therefore as a group have the most privilege. They are also mostly who post in this particular forum. Plus when you look at the problems that men have, like with child custody, those problems come from the policies and practices initiated by other men.

Individual men have individual problems, there's no 'single' problem characteristic of every member of a group, and why should we pretend there is?

Would you say that Chelsea Clinton is more privileged than her father?

Well, frankly, yes. Bill Clinton's father wasn't the POTUS. Or do you really think Chelsea will have a harder time making it than her parents did?

That Melissa Rivers is a more powerful social reporter/commentator than Perez Hilton?

I'm confused. Are you saying that Perez Hilton had more privilege given to him than Melissa Rivers? Are you suggesting that Hilton's maleness trumped his Hispanicness and middle class obscurity, and that Melissa Rivers' femaleness prevented her from being a shining star?

How would you compare Mark Zuckerberg to Paris Hilton?

I'd say one of them -- the Jew -- parlayed his extreme smarts into building a multi-billion dollar company, and the other is a not-in-the-labour-force socialite. I suppose it was Zuckerberg's maleness that propelled him to his billions, while it was Hilton's femaleness that has destined her to live life as a lowly multi-millionaire.

I don't know what point it is you're trying to make.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying there are any number of sources of privilege, and Whiteness, I dare say, isn't even the best source -- being the offspring of those with extreme net worth is a far better source.

But the use of the term 'privilege' in any case is problematic. Let's say I have an advantage, compared to nonWhite people, in interacting with police. If the advantage is to be treated without prejudice, that does not mean that advantage came at the expense of nonWhite people. Prejudice against Black males doesn't help out White males. It makes everyone worse off. To start treating Black males without prejudice doesn't mean White males have to be treated with prejudice.

When focus is merely on one characteristic that may privilege an individual, a whole host of other characteristics is ignored. Is that fair? Why?

It's like saying there was not male privilege in Elizabethan England because Elizabeth was on the throne and they named the times for her. I freely admit I have privilege. But college degrees, a body that doesn't need a ramp to get on the porch, and a bank account that's by no means Chelsea Clinton's, but it isn't in the red either, does not mean that white males in my social circle and even some below that rung on the ladder don't have privilege in relation to me.

How are you defining your social circle?

And as for this discussion being only about white males, white males as a group are on top and therefore as a group have the most privilege. They are also mostly who post in this particular forum. Plus when you look at the problems that men have, like with child custody, those problems come from the policies and practices initiated by other men.

Individual men have individual problems, there's no 'single' problem characteristic of every member of a group, and why should we pretend there is?

Would you say that Chelsea Clinton is more privileged than her father?

Well, frankly, yes. Bill Clinton's father wasn't the POTUS. Or do you really think Chelsea will have a harder time making it than her parents did?

That Melissa Rivers is a more powerful social reporter/commentator than Perez Hilton?

I'm confused. Are you saying that Perez Hilton had more privilege given to him than Melissa Rivers? Are you suggesting that Hilton's maleness trumped his Hispanicness and middle class obscurity, and that Melissa Rivers' femaleness prevented her from being a shining star?

How would you compare Mark Zuckerberg to Paris Hilton?

I'd say one of them -- the Jew -- parlayed his extreme smarts into building a multi-billion dollar company, and the other is a not-in-the-labour-force socialite. I suppose it was Zuckerberg's maleness that propelled him to his billions, while it was Hilton's femaleness that has destined her to live life as a lowly multi-millionaire.

I don't know what point it is you're trying to make.

It's okay if you don't see the point. Other people reading this will.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The thing about white, male, or any similar kind of blanket privilege is that it's never universal; something that some SJW's seem to forget. As white people, we statistically speaking have a much higher chance of having an advantageous position in society; and white *men* even more so. But that doesn't mean that just *because* you're a white man, you're inevitably going to be in a better position (and thus be privileged) than others; or be treated better by them a priori (another form of privilege). There are always outliers. That isn't to say we shouldn't level the playing field for groups that are statistically speaking disadvantaged (although it would be preferable if we could find a way to both efficiently and fairly do so by looking at individual circumstances instead).

So it's really not true that the only reason to be upset about checking your privilege is because you 'can't'. That's *a* reason, but hardly the only one. Arguably a much more important reason is the fact that the statement can only be made by making some rather far-reaching assumptions about you based on nothing more than shallow external facts about you. Obviously "you're black therefore you must be a thug" is a much more problematic and offensive assumption to make about someone, but that doesn't mean that "you're white, therefore you're more privileged than me/them" isn't also offensive in its ignorance.

Well said. The confusion of group reputations or norms or stereotypes for universal truths about any individual in the group is a real problem here.

I also agree with the person above who said that racism against black people does not create "white privilege". That is a hostile way of approaching it and it is sure to backfire if your goal is to bring white people on board with fixing things. Focus on the wrong done to the disadvantaged, and if race is a factor in that disadvantage, then it is fine to target that. But race is not always a factor and should not be assumed to be in every case, as so many seem to want to do here. It is almost as ass backwards and sure to backfire as claiming that other groups can't be privileged, because of their membership in those groups (blacks, women, etc). Of course they can. Such privilege may not offset what they face against them, but the one doesn't magically negate the other.

 

[Bomb#20]

http://bittergertrude.com/2014/12/12/the-white-guy-problem/

...
Mose specifically:

Since all white American-born men have lived their entire lives in a culture that always put their needs first and was structured around their narratives,

The bittergertrude.com author is, evidently, lying. The fact that affirmative action even exists in the first place is a counterexample -- proof that we live in a culture that at least occasionally puts other people's needs ahead of white American-born men's. But god forbid that reality should be allowed to interfere with rousing rhetoric. Which brings me to the main point...

This subset of white men cannot comprehend that the expression of the pain and anger of a long-oppressed group of people is a more urgent issue than their need to be seen as “a good guy.” It takes a truly mind-blowing amount of self-absorption, entitlement, and privilege to answer “White people are hurting us; please help make it stop” with “NOT ALL WHITE PEOPLE.” What this response is saying is: “My need to be seen as a ‘good guy’ is more important than your pain. Please direct your attention to that and confirm that I am ‘good’ before I will consent to recognize your pain.” It’s the social equivalent of demanding that someone compliment your bitchin’ Camaro before you agree to roll it off their foot. OR HEAD.

... which is that people who talk like that author talk that way because of their need to be seen as good guys. If you pepper your rhetoric with lies about people and they push back, that's a reproach. A reproach against you. A reproach against your personal character. The people who say "NOT ALL WHITE PEOPLE" are calling you on your lies, which means they're calling you out as a bad person. And the thought that you're a bad person is psychologically intolerable to you. How can you resolve this and restore your sense of your own goodness, except by convincing yourself that it's okay for you to lie about them, because they deserve it.

The author could have written:

What this response is saying is: “My need to be seen as a ‘good guy’ is more important than your pain. Please direct your attention to that and confirm that I am ‘good’ before I will consent to recognize your pain.” It’s the social equivalent of demanding that someone compliment your bitchin’ Camaro before you agree to help roll some third party's Trans Am off their foot.​

That would have made a fair point about priorities. But to make it the guy's bitchin' Camaro that's on your foot is to accuse the guy you want help from of your problem being personally his fault. You don't do that because of evidence, and you certainly don't do that because it's a smart way to get him to want to help you. You do it because you're being unfair to him and you know it, so you're reassuring yourself that he deserves it so you can still be seen as a good guy. The bittergertrude.com author is projecting.