Do You Feel Lucky?

(and feel free to comment! My older posts are certainly no less relevant to the burning concerns of the day.)

Wednesday, January 17, 2018

Mega-Pertinent Announcement For Fans Of Online Poetry Or Arbitrary Quantity-Based Writing Prompts! OR BOTH

So in 2006 apparently, I started my poetry blog, A Pocketful of Poesy. That's

Alongabout 2009, I'm guessing July of, I realized it was pretty sweet and easy going, writing these poems. So easy in fact that I felt with a little application, writing one a day should be no trouble at all. By "a little application" I don't mean a software dittydoo you install on your iThingy - those hadn't been invented yet, not in 2009. Or if they had, no wait. They had, but that's not I meant by "a little application." I meant good old-fashioned bull-forwardness. Or ox-forwardness, probably - keep to the path and PLOW ASS, so to speak. Muleforwardness. In human terms, a little of the ol' greasy-elbow magic! This, I meant "application" by.

Did you know that historians have considered the ox to be an invention? By that standard, surely man is an invention! Somebody saw an angel and said "Wonder whut if we cut its wings off?" Then they were like, "Huh, looks hurt. And kinda lonely. Whut if we pull one of his ribs out?"

Now that that's cleared up. So 'longabout July 2009, I declared that henceforward, A Pocketful of Poesy would be a poem-a-day blog, on average. I even committed to make up the difference for 2009's slow start, which I did. It was easy. Don't believe me? Check out some of the poems for yourself! Especially during some of those epic Novembers, where the "Drive for 365" really hit the fan. November 2009: 103 poems! Nov 2017: 172 POEMS. Browse through some of those if you can't tell the difference between a poem that was easy and a poem that was hard. Trust me, some of them were easy. Some of them, you can pretty much tell. Don't believe me? See if I care!

You do realize, though, that when you scoff at my claimed ease, you only multiply my efforts - and magnify the glory they reflect upon me. Thank you, but no need! Being an online poet is glory enough, I assure you.

Where where we? Wherever it was, after that things went along swimmingly for years. 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012...right up through 2013, when I suddenly quit 227 poems in. Perhaps I decided it was unseemly, beneath my dignity to churn out poems as if on some clockwork basis, where the number and not the quality mattered.

Well guess what? I was WRONG. Nothing on earth is beneath my dignity - and precious few things in the heavens.

So it is with great honor and a modicum of tardiness that I announce, beginning last year (2017), A Pocketful of Poesy is again a POEM-A-DAY(-ON-AVERAGE) BLOG!

Wednesday, January 10, 2018

Word of the Day: "avuncular"

"Avuncular" means "of, like, or in a manner reminiscent of uncles." What is the corresponding term for aunts?

Monday, January 08, 2018

Monday, January 01, 2018

Thought of the New Year: Happy

Happy New Year. May your dreams be made of the possible, and may waking bring practical means.

Sunday, December 31, 2017

Thought of the day: Karma

People who know you, however you've given them to know you, form your world.

It is in this sense that karma is real.

Tuesday, December 26, 2017

How Gay Are Various Countries?

United States of America: pretty gay.

Canada: gay to middling.

England: rather gay.

Ireland: gay as angels' legs.

Scotland: more gay than you'd think, maybe!

Russia: taciturn, but gay.

Australia: gay enough.

France: Paree: tres gay. Remainder: less gay. Comparatively.

Germany: the polka.

Mexico: muy gay, but generally not muy muy gay.

China: so gay.

Tuesday, November 28, 2017

Word of the day: "aver"

We here at Consider Your Ass Kicked! have long pondered the advisability of putting out a recurring feature to ape the hordes and scads of tony, literary, classy in a word social media outlets who favor (even favour) you with their "Word of the Day," and associated high-fluting noodle-musings upon the themes and variations it suggests to them.

Well, ponder no more, we here et al. Today's official Consider Your Ass Kicked! word of the day is: "aver."

"Aver" is such a bad word. Don't use it. Because it sounds like you're doing something squirrely! And as far as I can tell, you're not. I looked it up, and they'd have me believe you're perfectly on the up-and-up with that.

It's plain suspicious to use such a suspicious-sounding word to describe strictly legitimate doings.

"Aver" is a verb.


Sunday, November 19, 2017

Saturday, November 11, 2017

What Is Behind This Senseless Violence? Pt. 6

People who claim mass shooters are automatically mentally ill are trying to tar shooters with the very stigma so many have tried so hard to eradicate. They call them mentally ill in an attempt to degrade them. That's an insult not to mass shooters, it's an insult to the mentally ill. You want to degrade these shooters? Call out what's really wrong with them.

Misanthropy isn't a mental illness. There are lonely, embittered and insignificant men, furious at their own insignificance and with a rage to take it out on innocent people, and then die. They have hatred and contempt for the woo woo hallmark happiness of others, sold and marketed to everyone, which to them is nothing but a lie. They want to prove how meaningless life is, by confronting the world with senseless death.

What are we supposed to do, create a world in which everyone can make meaningful interactions and find purpose in service to others?

Saturday, October 07, 2017

Thursday, October 05, 2017

What Is Behind This Senseless Violence?

The only message Stephen Paddock sent was "I am powerful, and your meaningless life is hanging by a thread at any moment, and you are helpless to protect yourself from me or anyone like me." Unless a manifesto pops up belatedly, we'll never know if he had any motivation beyond some kind of personal hate for the irritating happy little world of sheeple, and a desire to publicly execute a bunch of them to demonstrate the ugliness and meaninglessness of life and the futility of delusions of security and control.

Even that's a guess at best. All imputations of motive will be, unless more is learned. Meanwhile, what is behind people's need to make all these big, sinister implications that "there must be some deeper motive?"

They're scared little children, is what's behind it. These are the people who refuse to believe anyone who'd deliberately murder strangers for no reason is "mentally ill." They're serenely ignorant, and they refuse to believe in the capacity of human evil because it scares them. They believe any act, no matter how horrible, can be "explained" by "ideology."

No. Sorry. Ideology provides the excuse for antisocial violent acts, but the excuse is not the cause. People inclined to violence gravitate towards excuses. One is as good as the other - the one they find will be good enough.

But plenty of them aren't so weak as to need an excuse from some theory or mentor in order to act. To deny that is to misunderstand the problem, waste time and effort on symbolic gestures that neither explain nor improve the situation.

That explanation people want is just some excuse, any excuse, to pretend they understand and to feel better about what humanity is like.

Example: plenty enough people think life is meaningless. Or that people are horrible. Or that humanity is worthless - a bad thing on the face of the planet. That the world is a wrong, bad place and that society is a disgusting lie foisted on people to make them believe in things like the possibility of justice. None of that is insane. It's commonplace.

If you start from nihilism, all it takes is a bit of egotism and irritation with people's chirpiness to want to show them all just how meaningless life is. Which isn't insane, if life really is meaningless. It's just cruel and egotistical. A refusal to honor the illusions of others and leave them to them. A desire to show the world that your interpretation of the world is the correct one, and that they have been fools to believe their rosier views of the world, which protect them not one bit from the inescapable truth.

I suppose you can say that itself would be an ideology, but no. Nihilism is the rejection of ideology.

All you need to kill for no reason is to believe in nothing.

Wednesday, October 04, 2017

Thoughts and prayers going out

Thoughts and prayers going out to all scumbags out there contemplating cowardly acts of violence against strangers and loved ones. May God make a change in your hearts so you shoot yourselves in the f***ing head without the needless step of first mowing down others.

Tuesday, October 03, 2017

The Tough Topics #46: The Oxford Comma

I use the Oxford comma wherever its omission could lead to an alternate reading, and omit it otherwise. You know where people run into trouble? Where their omission or inclusion of the Oxford comma is a point of principle, rather than a decision dependent entirely on content, context, and sense.

People who always omit it risk giving the reader two grammatically valid ways to read the statement. In contracts or in law, this can be fatal.

People who always include it run no risks in terms of the sense they wish to convey. But in using a comma where none is needed - where no alternate reading could arise from its omission - they risk seeming rule-bound, precious, given to stylistic affectations that serve no purpose. Adherent to a principle, without having any feel for its actual use or effect.

The Oxford comma, like every mark of punctuation, is a tool to direct meaning along the writer's desired path. Clarity demands its use where necessary. Elegance and simplicity would seduce us to omit it where its presence adds nothing. There are those who love and some who hate the Oxford comma, but the majority who simply omit it without thought do so out of an instinct for simplicity, and a dislike for needless flourish or ornament.

But we can't lose sight of the controversy! Gratuitous use of the Oxford comma (where its omission could not possibly introduce ambiguity) DOES add something! It signals to the world "I'm Team Oxford Comma!" With all that that implies, and most of what it implies is good. I'm not Team Oxford Comma, but most of those people are pretty funny and great, and it's sweet and wonderful that so tiny a mark could say so much. An Aldis-lamp flash to the like-minded resistance.

The Oxford comma will never die. It will keep barging in where it's not needed, pointing proudly to where it sometimes is. And its opponents will omit it scrupulously, sometimes to the detriment of their case in court, more often to the hilarity of readers who spot the wild ambiguity unleashed. The Oxford comma is the only thing that can leash that beast. Do we need it? Yes.

Do we need it all over the place? Probably not. But you ought to admit, it's a little bit cute.

Wednesday, September 27, 2017

Thought of the day: Self-Concept

The persona is misconceived by too many as a mask, or a suit of armor - a barrier to hide behind. In reality it's far more like a martial art. It is a matter of self-knowledge: learning one's capacities, choosing which strengths to rely on and developing them into knowing, in practice. Being always one's self on the way to one's best self, never getting there.

Point is: I digress. But a carefully-constructed self-concept is a pretty sweet deal.

Tuesday, September 26, 2017

Unsolicited Marketing Advice #5: Prepared Statement for NFL Team Owners

Our flag stands for individual liberty and freedom of conscience, not lockstep uniformity and coercion. Traditionally, players have stood during the anthem to show respect for the flag. But if to force a show of respect for a symbol of freedom, it comes to the use of coercion and punishment, we are dishonoring that symbol, and the freedom it represents, far worse than they could ever do.

A patriotic display is voluntary. In places where it isn't voluntary, it's a meaningless and empty gesture in capitulation to tyranny.

Tuesday, September 12, 2017

Sunday, August 27, 2017

Why You May Have Decided It's Such A Waste Of Time To Bother Trying To Argue With People

People who put their view to another with a goal to change the other person's mind do tend to get worn out. Of course they do. It's the frustration of their goal that wears them out. If they believe the point of putting their view out there is to change minds, they're not going to change many, maybe not any, and so they'll judge all that effort wasted. Naturally, this will wear them out.

It's sad, because they clearly do care about right and wrong views of things. I'd like to think they do, at least.

There are at least 2 great reasons to put your view out to someone that blow away these puerile debate-clubbers' "mind change" fixations. One is because truth is a great and positive relief and release to share. Whether it's a joyful truth, or a truth of justice outraged, once you've really tapped that outlet it's way easier to let it out than shut it in.

The other is, you share yours to understand theirs. Not only the view of the human being across from you, but how they came to that view, and how they continue to hold it. Honest questions, with sincere interest in the answers: you'll hear so many different ways and paths. Even if the conclusion doesn't ever make sense to you, you will increasingly understand the people. That understanding can never be a detriment to your ability to engage with others, and speak truth to them. The more of them you understand, the greater your reach will be.

These goals don't rely on external reactions for their fulfillment. Instead of wearing out, you will grow in strength and purpose.

Another good reason. If all you care about is changing minds, winning the argument - the goals of the puerile debate-club crowd - people can sense that. They can tell your questions aren't serious, your views aren't open, and that to you, the whole thing is just some kind of competition.

Ironically, people who think it's all a waste of time unless you can change minds suck worst at changing minds. That's why you'll hear them so often, crying aloud at how useless it is to bother. They're right: and they speak for themselves.

Don't listen to them. Nobody should, really.

Tuesday, August 15, 2017

Thought of the day: Fear of being wrong

Having been wrong is how you get right.

Respect for Free Speech.

You are free to voice your truth, no matter what it is. That's free speech.

And when people voice theirs, and it's vile ugliness and hate, you are free to voice yours in opposition. That's free speech.

Annnnnd if you don't, guess what? That just means you're a disgusting coward. It doesn't mean you respect free speech.

Respect for free speech is best expressed by using yours, to oppose what you claim to believe is wrong.

Monday, August 14, 2017


This is addressed to white people specifically. I hope that's ok.

Caveat or, mea culpa - whatever the term is; full disclosure - I am myself white people, though I prefer the term "personage."

White people, at some point today if you haven't already, you will see a viral social media post, with words to the effect: how ironic is it that all it takes is one white woman to get publicly killed in a horrifying video clip to get tons of white people outraged and speaking up?

There are a lot of reasons for posts like this, but let's focus on the end result. The aspect that matters: a lot of people would like you to shut your mouth. Racists especially, white supremacists particularly, would like you white people to shut up. They would like any white people arriving late to the fight to feel ashamed and fake, and shut their mouths in embarrassment. They would like you to question the basis of your outrage, and be unable to come up with a flattering answer. They want you to go back to being the average white person who finds all this so unpleasant and distasteful, and acts like absenting their voice is some kind of high road. They want you to slink back into silence, and let people with strong convictions hold the field unopposed. They're confident they can beat the activists, if bystanders keep out of it.

Well, don't shut up. If seeing that was what it took to open your eyes and open your mouths, don't close your eyes now that they've been opened. Don't shut your mouths. There have been a lot of horrific videos in recent years. There will be more to come. Your voice is powerful, especially in its silence if you let it be silent. Whatever it took for you to find your voice, to locate your outrage and to direct it at those who have contempt - not just for people who aren't like you! But for every human life that doesn't embody their twisted, lost, hateful ideology - whatever it took to wake that up, don't let your outrage go back to sleep now. When the battle is pitched and you are desperately needed, don't quit the fight just because you arrived late.

If at worst, you're forced to feel a pang of guilt for not having spoken out sooner, embrace that pang. Maybe you're one of the people like me, who somehow can't believe people are that bad. Maybe you've been able to shunt away how bad things have been getting, because it didn't cross over into your own life. Maybe you couldn't believe it because nothing had yet brought it home to you. Maybe you were able to rationalize away other attacks, incidents: deaths. "I wasn't there." "Maybe something else happened, to make it make sense?" No, you weren't there. It's been a privilege. Be there now.

Don't shut up. Engage the people who refuse to condemn what is patently and thoroughly evil. Ask them what on earth is wrong with them.

And yes, be aware that there's going to be a bunch of folks who make scathing ironic comments about how long it took you. They've had a long, disgusting, disheartening slog, and their patience is far from fresh. You'll find out a little bit about what that's like, so long as you don't turn over, close your eyes again, shut your mouth now.

Don't give evil the silence it needs to grow unopposed. Don't let your past silence shame your outrage now. Raise your voice, and keep raising it. Do you hate racism? They will hate that.

Sunday, August 13, 2017

I am a feminist. But just in case: see pronunciation note.

I am a feminist. I became a feminist after living with a women's studies major for eight years. Then I looked it up in the dictionary. At that point, I became a feminist.

A feminist is one who believes in and advocates for the legal, political, and economic equality of a woman to a man.

That definition's kind of unfairly stacked in favor. I mean, I read that - there wasn't any wiggle room at all! How could I not be a feminist? That definition makes anyone not a feminist pretty much a moron. I didn't so much "become" a feminist as realize I am one. What the heck does a heterosexual man who is not a feminist want, in terms of a woman? What does he aspire to? What kind of dip-stick wants - no, needs - an inferior partner? What kind of coward not merely settles for but demands a partner who is not at least his equal?

It's a good definition, because it focuses on the cause itself. Feminism is a cause. It's my cause. I don't own it, nobody does. It's mine because I believe in and advocate for it.

However! I'm aware over the years that there's another definition of feminist, with which I'm entirely cool:

A feminist is a woman who believes in and advocates for the legal, political, and economic equality of a woman to a man.

Sure, everyone that description fits is a feminist. The accent there is slightly more on who can belong to the club. That's cool too. There's an esprit de corps, people, that can only be felt between those who've shared the same trenches, being fired upon. It's precious, it's sustaining, and it binds people together like nothing else. Whatever your involvement in the struggle, men: you haven't shared those trenches.

I mean, even if hypothetically you went to a literal feminist rally, and it literally happened that you were fired upon by literal bullets and had to dive behind literal barricades with your fellow feminists - you haven't. Even if you literally got shot in that hypothetical incident. Because to some of them, verging on an ideological majority by now I believe (depending on who you ask, and sometimes how), you are not their fellow feminist, and you can't be because you are a fellow. No matter what your involvement in the cause: you haven't remotely sustained under the same withering fire they have. You haven't walked around your whole life doubting, being doubted, flinching from implications, worrying which ones were deliberate and which were just ignorant, getting cut down, discarded, disregarded, all because you weren't empenised at birth. You were not in those trenches. You have DICK PRIVILEGE. Don't be a dick; own it.

Solidarity's important, and esprit de corps is important too. Living through the same kind of lifelong struggle forges real bonds between those who've lived it, and can therefore relate. You haven't lived it; you can't relate. Thank your lucky stars you can't.

Now: this is not to say all feminists hold that only a woman can be a feminist. Only that within the movement, most of the women seem to - and you ought to see and get that there are sound reasons why. Be sensitive to that, and don't try to horn in on the club when a feminist is right there telling you you can't be a member. You don't need to hobnob in a club. You've got a cause.

And what are you doing for it, by the way? If you don't mind my asking?

I'm not talking about being "allies." I don't understand this "allies" biz. The war is long since declared. We don't need allies. We need active combatants. Don't even consider yourself an ally if the extent of your allyship is to express your support to true believers! You'd better be doing more than that. When sexism rears its ugly head, you need to be right there shoving it up its sweet ass. Encounter! Engage! Confront! Oppose! Advocacy does not consist in preaching to choirs! The enemy is sexism, and you need to engage and confront that enemy wherever it is encountered. Otherwise, no: you don't believe in and advocate for. At best, you can claim to believe. Not enough.

Confession time. I must confess: I still say I'm a feminist. I'm always going to say I'm a feminist.

It's my cause. I can't understand any man whose cause it isn't. I can't understand any man who doesn't see how incredibly much we've all benefited from gains made towards equality. I'll always put it forth that I'm a feminist. But I'll put it forth tentatively, and absolutely without insistence. The cause is what's important and I don't need to crash the club. Often enough, the feminist I'm talking to proves cool with what I'm claiming. Big deal, yippee for me! Doesn't mean I don't retract and clarify at the first objection, and without argument, each time that happens. Because the definition of feminist that ipso facto excludes males is a legitimate definition. Because the reasons for that sentiment are valid. And because it cannot be valid for me to contest with someone dedicated to my cause, over some ego-need of mine to force my unwanted way onto her membership rolls.

I mean, that's practically obvious. You'd think.

So as a handy term to cover this sort of thing, I hasten to clarify that I am effeminist. Which indeed I am.

It's a specialized term, recent of coinage. It characterizes a man who believes in and advocates for the legal, political, and economic equality of a woman to a man. Generally, I use it in the adjective form, but it probably nouns out about the same. As language evolves, as understanding evolves, we need new terms from time to time. I made it up myself! Nice, right?

Only potential problem: the pronunciation. It's pretty much exactly homophonic to "a feminist." Thankfully, in practice it's not a problem. In my experience, it's always easy to clarify.

I'm always a feminist the first time you ask, but from there, strictly as needed, I'm about as effeminist as it gets.

Think Before You Speak, Not During.

Think before you speak, ok: preferably the day before. Think the week, month and year before - your whole life, as a general thing, think.

And after you've spoken with someone - think then! About what was said, and about whether what you mean has changed. Or feels like it needs to. And if it does, think some more. Think it through.

But don't think while you're speaking.

While you're speaking: focus on putting what you mean into words. Not on who you're saying it to, not on how different people will take it. Put what you mean into words. Work at this with focus and determination, all the while you speak. Don't distract yourself thinking up ways to soften, spin, or silence what you mean.

You know what you mean when you open your mouth to say it, right? Focus on that, and on getting it right. That's quite enough a task to set yourself, when you open your mouth. You opened it because you had something to say. Focus in, nail it - done. Then sit back ready to hear what the other's take is, and while you're listening - yes, think! Think then, about what they're saying, preferably. Not about what you intend to inject just as soon as you can finish pretend-listening and break in edgewise.

Listening thoughtfully to theirs can only help you understand your own meaning. Once you've digested what they have to say, consider your reaction. Now, your reaction can simply be thoughtful silence. It can also be a few introductory remarks noting where you agree with these points of theirs, before advancing on those other points. Your reaction can be to question, following on from their statements, seeking clarity. Exploring just where your grasps of reality overlap, and do not.

Or, your reaction may be to know precisely what you've got to say. So say it! Put what you mean into words.


You'll have thought it all through before, surely? But if not, even better! You'll have ample time to think it all through afterward, after all. From daring to speak, you'll gain more rounded insights on everything that comes up, wherever you've participated. You make a habit of this, you'll end up knowing pretty dang well what you mean on just about anything that does come up. Better yet, you'll know how easy it is for you to correct your views, using the best parts of other people's views - wherever they improve or improve on yours. That's a thing you can see for yourself, if you ever make a habit of focusing hard and sharp on what you mean, instead of on how to pitch it, twist it, cloak it in mist. Bury it in shit, or sink it in silence. The people who worry about that kind of stuff never learn to think clearly about anything.

The people who think first and shut up learn nothing but the inside of their own brains, and the cowardice that therein dwells.

Tuesday, August 08, 2017

Thought of the day: Guaranteed Something

Does it ever occur to anyone that without further specification, saying "Guaranteed results" ought to be about as reassuring as saying "Guaranteed consequences"?

Friday, August 04, 2017

Darth Vader must stink horribly

I mean, think about it. Walking around in the same black leather outfit all the time - does he ever even bathe? Does he ever take it off? Can he even? Parts of it are parts of him! We know he takes the helmet off sometimes, but even there the closeness of the helmet and the rankness of dried spittle must be overpowering. The suit probably has some climate-regulating elements, but go ask an astronaut how rank their kit gets after a full day's work - and they're not striding around menacing people 24/7 in it. There's no in-film evidence that the Empire's technology has developed any B.O.-killing miracle fabrics. Look at Grand Moff Tarkin! His foul stench carries all throughout the Death Star, and his outfit is clearly far more breathable than Vader's.

It's kind of disgusting when you think about it.

Tuesday, July 25, 2017

Our Ideas Are Not Mad At Each Other

Conflict between ideas is inherent in the ideas themselves. It's not a matter of belligerence, of attitude, of the personalities involved. There are points of conflict that are demonstrable, where each idea contradicts the other. If one is true, the other must be modified, possibly discarded.

When we become aware of a conflict between ideas we hold true, or a conflict between ours and those of another, we have a choice.

We can address the conflict: emphasizing the point of contradiction, explore how each idea's validity can be supported with reference to either A) observable reality, or B) some acknowledged truth, fundamental to both parties' understanding. B is usually best and easiest, but if the parties can find no fundamental shared truths between them, relevant to the ideas in question, they can still fall back upon A. If neither idea can be supported from there, any conflict between the ideas is probably imaginary.

Or, we can elect to leave it unaddressed. Whenever we become aware of a conflict between ideas and we fail to address that conflict, this is either cowardice or apathy. Cowardice, when we doubt our ideas can stand up to the examination, and we fear the consequences if they are undermined. Apathy, when we don't believe the attempt is worth the effort.

Don't worry. In either case, the attitude is probably entirely justified.

In neither case is anything of one's self at risk. When an idea of ours is undermined, the worst that can happen is that we become motivated to explore it more deeply, eventually to reach a better grasp of it. The better to hold it, if the idea is fundamentally sound.

Sometimes, the only better grasp we can get of an idea is to let it go. No harm done to anyone. If we ever want another look at it, or if we're feeling nostalgic, we can always wander back to the idea later and pick it up, kick it around!

"White Privilege" Doesn't Work.

"White Privilege" doesn't work. And I've tried. For about the past fifteen months or so, any time I'm in a social setting and things go awkward, I'll take a step back, put my hands up and say "Whoa! Whoa whoa, whoa. White Privilege!" I'll accompany that with a light brush of my cheek with the fingers of the left hand, turning the palm outward after. As if to demonstrate and invoke skin tone as a confrontation-stopper.

It doesn't work, folks. It has no effect. Sometimes, it will result in an engaged and passionate discussion of white privilege, and of how people have misunderstood its nature or pervasiveness, but the point is it doesn't work for what it's supposed to allegedly do: exempt us (or if you the reader are not white-identified, "we people") from the harmful consequences of racism and in particular, racial dysneogyny ("racial dysneogyny" is a term for people suddenly bitching about racism all of a sudden, especially unexpectedly). While it's true this can lead to an active, engaged exchange with the beneficial outcome of everybody on the same page, the fact remains: "White Privilege" doesn't work like we've been led to believe. It's basically a bill of goods.

Consider yourselves warned, everybody - white OR nonwhite. And try to tread lightly on other peoples' sensitive areas. Worst of all, in case it happens, remember: if somebody calls you out on racism - that person is an ally.