I’m not sure I agree. It sure seems to me that he’s arguing that “white privilege” is actually not used as a slur, not just that it’s possible to not use it that way (for the time being anyway, c.f. “retarded”).

If I’m right, then the logic that he uses to make the argument is poor; even if his conclusion is correct, poor arguments should be discarded in favor of good ones.

If he was only arguing that it was possible to use it as a non-slur, then it would be a very short argument indeed. I do not understand why he would go on for so long; the argument takes a couple of sentences: “Because things tend to be set up for the majority, members of the majority effectively have a privilege. We therefore can refer, without prejudice, to types of majority privilege: right-handed privilege, 20/20 vision privilege, white privilege, ambulatory privilege, and so on.”