Waitwaitwait--this is a huge red flag right here! Why are we using a term in everyday conversation that has a tendency to provoke objection prior to study?
It's almost as inadvisable as, say, using #DefundThePolice instead of #PoliceAccountability.
Stereotyping of white people is typically (not always) advantageous, and one could label that as "white privilege". But it's a dumb way to apply labels, because it makes it sound like white people are all sipping martinis and smoking cigars by a giant pool. ("But I didn't mean that!" "Then why didn't you ask your Critical Discourse Analysis friends to help you say what you mean instead of them helping you create ambiguous, semi-insulting, but deniable terms?!") Furthermore, any term that requires education to even properly understand will segregate people into those who know and those who don't, which reinforces in-group cohesion, but is bad at accomplishing anything.
To me, it just reeks of yet another valuation of feeling like one's fighting the righteous fight over the ability to actually get something right done.
If we're talking about just chatting with people--sure, they'll use whatever language they use, and everyone should try their best to understand the intended meaning, and respond based on the intended meaning. But if we're evaluating how language should be used, this phrase is one for the rubbish-bin.
* It is almost impossible to use it without stereotyping white people
* It very often hides instances of violation of human rights
* When applied to issues of rights it suggests that not everyone (or perhaps no-one) is due rights
* It calls to mind the socioeconomic elite, which isn't usually the group being discussed
* In combination with the also-ambiguous "check" (inspect vs. restrain), delivers the implication that our goal should be to tear down people until they all suffer equally, instead of bring up people until they all rejoice equally
* It's now used heavily as a tribal affiliation marker, which builds walls between rather than bridges between oneself and others.
Anyone who is intellectually honest deserves an honest interaction--indeed, those who aren't also deserve this. But anyone who is intellectually honest ought to be able to really quickly move past slogan-level discourse where "white privilege" even is brought up, instead of things like the causes of racial disparities in police action of various sorts, callback rates to job candidates in various areas, representation in media and the extent to which this matters, and so on.
So, I both agree and don't. My advice would be:
(1) If you are someone who uses the term "white privilege", cut it out. It's divisive, misleading, and elitist/tribal. Instead, refer to actual structural or institutional problems, or stereotyping.
(2) But yes, if you are someone who hears someone else use "white privilege", take the advice in this article and at least try to meet them halfway.
(Aside--for almost every unearned advantage due to systemic X, there is another side to the story, either cases where it's an unearned disadvantage due to systemic anti-X or pro-not-X, or cases where the perception is of an unearned advantage but actually the advantage is fully earned. But that's a whole separate topic, and too long to fit in a short comment here.)