If you are the member of a privileged group AND call yourself progressive

[ChaoticTrilby]

115. It's still called "don't be an ass hole."

But, back when that was all it was called, it was apparently too vague and we ended up with a large number of well-meaning dolts who told/used sexist/racist/able-ist/etc. jokes/language and then got offended when people found them offensive because, after all, they didn't intend to be ass holes. When it comes to able-ism, I hold no illusions on that matter - I used to use such language myself and thus became one such well-meaning dolt. In reality, those who partook in all this only worked to perpetuate an atmosphere of discrimination. Or, at least, ass-holery. Yes, even if they didn't intend to and would probably have gone after most of the Limbaugh/O'Reilly crowd.

Thus, there had to be a way to expand upon the "don't be an ass hole" rule. So, a few went ahead and added an addendum: "don't ignore the fact that you might not know everything about what some victims of certain sorts of discrimination have to go through, if you don't happen to be a part of those groups yourself, and try not to be utterly insensitive by calling them 'thin-skinned' when they call you out for being an ass-hole."

As for your first link, it was a little vague and those three criteria (focus on public complaints, lack of interest in dialogue, lack of consideration for context/intent) are criticized in somewhat problematic ways - particularly the second two. As for the first, I don't see why it's a negative. Why is it wrong to discuss sexist/homophobic/racist/etc. language in the context of discussing privilege publicly? It's a valid discussion topic, so I'll just assume that this is a "neutral" requirement, meant to be taken in the context of the other two, and move on.
The second issue is a little bit odd. It seems that harsh words and scoldings are fine (at least around fellow liberals) when people go around preaching blatantly sexist/racist/homophobic views, and yet these are somehow wrong when people use jokes/language that at least passively perpetuates such views in the public consciousness? I don't really understand how anyone can expect people (especially those in groups routinely mocked) to be able to keep from leaking vitriol when they have to explain for the umpteenth time why this word or that joke is offensive in some way - only to be called "overly-sensitive" for doing so, even in a calm manner. I can only assume that the irritation at harsh words used in this context is a direct result of blaming the victim (of the offensive behavior in question.)
As for the final point, context can make a difference, but it certainly isn't all that matters. We frame topics using language in ways that affect how we and others see them. "Pro-Life," versus "Anti-Choice," for example. Were I to read a cogent rant that I agreed with, I would still take offense if someone used a homophobic slur to insult some rotten person being ranted about. Even in context, this would simply go towards promoting a homophobic atmosphere. Well-meaning, or not. Context and intent can never fix this problem. Thus, I would call the writer out while simultaneously praising the rest of his/her essay. Because this is a problem, and it needs to be fixed, whether it would make the hypothetical essay-writer feel guilty about it or not.

Furthermore, that article indicates that privilege-hunting for sport requires that no dialogue be had. It would appear that much of this thread is dialogue about privilege, so I fail to see how you can use both links to accuse myself and others of derailing the discussion. It's a discussion about privilege that the OP presented. So, we are discussing the matter in a mostly civil manner. At least, I'd thought so. If I am coming off as smug or elitest/jerkish, let me know. I can sometimes slip up and sound more sarcastic/mean than I intend to be. This is the Internet after all, and tone can be difficult to pinpoint.

As for the tumblr link, I agree with the general purpose intended. However, you don't explain why my comments would be mocked there, so I can't address it beyond that.

And finally, I like those last four questions in that first link. In some sense, I often ask myself some distilled form of them before I type a post. Other times, I just ask myself, "What is my opinion on this matter?" So, thank you for directing me to that. I'm happy that I got something out of it.