I guess the sad part here is that many influential people promulgating the term "privilege" actually believe(d) that was relevant amorphously to all white people, who as a class theoretically enjoy(ed) some certain privileges (such as moving to Oregon, not being conscripted as a slave, access to credit), but as individuals did not necessarily become beneficiaries of them.

And as the relevance of those extreme explicitly codified exclusions disintegrated, it moved to hyperbole - an exaggerated reality that ignores class based inequality. But with such heavy segregation many people believe the exaggerations.

and finally, some academics are trying to retcon what the word "privilege" means by incorporating additional information that imposes a different interpretation on previously described events, retconning is typically used to facilitate a dramatic plot shift or account for an inconsistency.

how do we make this more obvious to people? I think there is a wide degree of support for programs that would disproportionately support disenfranchised people, as long as they are acknowledging its more of a class system now (and includes people of all race/ethnicities/colors in the program). And that's not the direction things currently are going, with the wrong words being used. Many would-be supporters are instead believing that there is an organized movement and threat to exclude them, as a form of payback, which is such an ironic and huge distraction, all from a failure to communicate. To that, I would just say its not organized.

Its just such a large potential population of support. "disproportionately affecting minorities" still leaves extremely large numbers of white people affected. whether its poverty, university admissions, dubious assaults and killings by law enforcement, domestic violence.