Here is a very short article on the topic that is easy to read, and does a good job explaining at least one reason (it is an ad hominem attack) that it is a bad way to present an argument - "Privilege". We live in an era where body shaming, gender shaming, race shaming, and any other type of condemnation based on factors beyond one's control have become unacceptable. In this era of "identity politics", the one remaining group on which it is still "open season" is white American men.
But wait! Doesn't White Privilege actually exist? Yes, this does exist in U.S. Caucasian people (on average) do have an economic and social advantage over Black, Hispanic, and Native American people (not necessarily Asians, though). Does American have a racism/inequality problem? Absolutely! This country is far from perfect, and with the recent election of Trump, many racists and bigots in the U.S. are feeling freer about expressing, rather than hiding, that attitude. Yes, that is happening. However, there is great variation among individuals in this country. There are plenty of poor, uneducated, unemployed or underemployed, disadvantaged white people, just as there are well-off and educated people from the minority populations. The U.S. is not unique in racism and privilege-based inequality. In fact it ranks with Northern Europe in its racial and ethnic tolerance. See "Most Racist Countries". The multicultural U.S. is among the least racially intolerant countries, according to the data.
"In-group" favoritism exists all over the world. India, probably the most racist country in the world, has its in-group (light skinned Hindus). In Russia, you really need to be of pure Russian descent to have a chance at success. China prefers ethically pure Chinese over Koreans, Japanese, and its many tribal ethnicities. In all Islamic countries, one or the other of the several Islamic sects will be the in-group, depending on the country (and forget about being a non-Moslem in a Sharia-law Islamic country). Particularly racist are Indonesia, Iran, and Pakistan. Ethno-centrism and racism is the norm across most of Africa. Practically all of the countries and parts of the world just mentioned treat women as second class citizens and tightly restrict their rights. And with the influx of Islamic immigrants into many European countries, the world is seeing an Islamic backlash from those countries. Case in point - the recent Brexit vote and the rising popularity of Nationalist parties in Austria, France, Denmark, Germany, Switzerland, and others. What makes America different from these is that we see it as a problem, and we talk about it - a LOT. We reflect and make attempts to self-correct - thus all the talk about white privilege in the US, but not Russian privilege in Russia or Chinese privilege in China. America is better than that. I think America is exceptional, in the traditional sense of American Exceptionalism. We don't hold ourselves this low standard. Racism and inequality are problems in this country, and we are slowly dealing with them.
There are other reasons also, which I mention in one of my other blog posts on "What's Wrong with PostModernism". Telling some one or some group that their have "invalid" or "inauthentic" opinions because of who they are poisons the well against them. It is a form of "genetic fallacy", judging an opinion based on its origin rather than its merit. This is all inspired by an insulting Facebook post which specifically targeted white, middle class, college educated, employed, not-in-prison men (like me) in the US. It attempted to saddle us with a "yuppie guilt" that is totally underserved:
I want my friends to understand that "staying out of politics" or being "sick of politics" is privilege in action. Your privilege allows you to live a non-political existence. Your wealth, your race, your abilities or your gender allows you to live a life in which you likely will not be a target of bigotry, attacks, deportation, or genocide. You don't want to get political, you don't want to fight because your life and safety are not at stake.I reject the assertion made by this facile blurb. It amounts to the following "Either you see the political situation just as I do and are fighting alongside of me, or you are an irresponsible upper-class wretch who should be ashamed of yourself". It leaves no room for dissent. Implicit in this statement is the assertion that those who are NOT privileged ARE politically active and always thinking about these things, which is very, very far from fact.
It is hard and exhausting to bring up issues of oppression (aka "get political"). The fighting is tiring. I get it. Self-care is essential. But if you find politics annoying and you just want everyone to be nice, please know that people are literally fighting for their lives and safety. You might not see it, but that's what privilege does.
This is a technique originated in the 1960s by the early Post Modernists, and first deployed on the political stage during the Afro-Asian Conference in April 1955 in Bandung, Indonesia. Hosted by President Sukarno, it launched the modern “Third World” movement, heralding the end of the dominance of the West, with its “rapacious capitalism” and overbearing colonial hegemony. It trumpeted the beginning of a new world order, a pacific, non-aligned, virtuous utopia, free from the colonial past and from white, Western dominance. These ex-colonial states were inherently “righteous” by the fact of their history of victimization. This shared experience united the new non-aligned nations under the flag of oppression. White former colonial powers were inherently evil, and poor third world countries were inherently virtuous.
Mainstream Philosophy has largely abandoned Post Modernism. It was chic for a few decades, but now it considered a failure. It is one of many half-thought-out and inadequate attempts at new philosophical schools (the same is true of Ayn Rand's Objectivism). Post Modernism is not taken seriously by other philosophers, but is still practiced in niches where out-of-power groups and the academics who support them continue to try to wrest power from the dominant group. It is a thin philosophical veneer overlaying what would otherwise be a naked power play. For an example of how it is currently being expressed, see this Harvard Law Record article describing how "Critical Race Theory" is justified by this same "White Privilege" excuse.