Maybe "accused" and "guilty" are not the right framing here - you inherit white privilege because of your ethnicity, it doesnt necessarily make you guilty of anything, but you benefit from it whether you want it or not.
You can think of it in the same way that the wealthier people you mention have inherited a better social class by just being born.
They can profit from the privilege of their wealth, while suffering from racial discrimination. You can suffer from poverty, while not being hindered by your skin color. People are multi-dimensional.
I think a fairer way to compare would be to compare people from the same social class when looking for privilege and inequality here.
Is a poor white person doing better than a poor black person?
Is a rich black person doing better than a poor black person? Is a white rich female doing better than a white rich male? Etc...
If people are multi dimensional, why are you grouping people by race and saying they have inherent characteristics based on race?
Going by your second paragraph, a black person born from wealthy parents who send their kid to harvard, has much more priviledge than a trailer park white kid.
So why are you grouping "whites" together as priviledged? What the hell does race have to do with anything?
In most large cities squatting cannot be a longer term solution, as it often doesnt take long to be explused from a place (in paris for example squats stay around from 2 to 6 months on average if you are lucky enough to manage to secure the place for the first week or so).
Also depending on who runs and occupies the building, it might actually not always be a safe/sane housing option neither.
My open question wrt to squatting is the potential to incentivize keeping real estate in active use. If "use it or lose it" is official policy, it might help mitigate hoarding.
A bit like some cities are now penalizing unoccupied condos, where investors buy up condos and then don't even rent them out.
This kind of makes sense, however I would wonder if that will make an incentive for creeps to get a membership just to approach women through the internal dating app.
Some men pretend to care about yoga and veganism just to approach women. You can see some memes about this phenomenon.
In this context, I assume the definition of a creep is someone who joins a group or an activity just to approach people romantically/sexually.
The problem is.... where should a man find a romantic partner without being a creep? By that definition, if he wants to join salsa class to find a girlfriend, he is already a creep.
The only appropriate place to find a girlfriend without being a creep is on Tinder or Bumblebee which have a slew of problems.
You heard someone giving advice that online dating is disaster and a man should find a girlfriend in social settings, like.... yoga class, salsa class.
So I try to mitigate this problem by building this dating app.
> There are virtually no consequences to the woman who accuses
So, women are being segregated before having any occasion to accuse men of sexism, and yet you claim that they would face 'no consequences' if they actually did?
Women are not 'being segregated' (which is a strawman argument on your part).
Men are refusing to giving advice, because there is past history of women falsely accusing them of being sexist when they do give it. Your claim purporting that it never happens - i.e. 'before having any occasion' - skews the time-perspective. And is against the odds that male investors have faced, which is why they now clam up.
This is nothing to do with 'segregation' - that's a silly interpretation on your part. Investors are wising up to hold their tongue, than to let aspersions be (falsely) cast upon them otherwise.
If thousands of people derive meaning and enjoyment out of a movie or a book, without the production of said movie or book killing anyone, it is quite obviously a much greater good than a single person committing murder for their own enjoyment.
It seems like its still safe to refer to someone of gender unknown as "they/them".
It actually normalises the use of those pronouns which makes it simpler for people iddntifying as non-binary too.
I don't mean that it's unsafe, just that it's somehow become controversial or at least less usual, people laboriously writing 'he or she' where I'm sure they wouldn't have ten years ago; 'they' isn't a modern invention it was always fine, and I suppose for the modern world is more inclusive than 'he or she' anyway!
