Let me start with saying: I'm a left-leaning Libertarian. To the extreme-left, I'm still a "filthy right-winger" (and have been accused of being such numerous times in discussions with them). Oddly enough, being right-leaning is seen as a "bad thing" rather than simply another political standing.

>The tweet you quote is saying something about privilege

"smart people, did you mean..." makes several assumptions:

1) Smart people are those in positions of "privilege"

This implies heavily that smart people are born into this "position of privilege" and not people who have earned it through hard work (ie. making smart decisions)

2) Smart people are especially white

Even if tied into the "positions of" part - this is still discrediting anyone who has earned their position. The ideology seems to think that people are given their positions based on their privilege rather than any individual credentials they may hold to have acquired their social standing. That is racist.

3) Smart people are especially dudes

See #2, except it is now sexist.

2 and 3 are both sexist and racist regardless if tied to 'position of privilege' or 'smart people' contexts. Sama is not making any relation to sex or race, the sexist and racist respondent is the one dragging it into the conversation.

>Do you believe that white men don't (in aggregate) have more privilege than other groups of people?

Irrelevant and largely US based. For example, it's not a large surprise that the majority of large business owners in a primarily white population would also be white. That's statistics, not privilege, at work. Redefining "prejudice against people because of the way they were born" to be "privilege" doesn't make it any less wrong to do. It simply provides a cover to try and make it look defensible, which is the exact sly tactic I am criticizing.

>Or do you believe that privilege doesn't color the way people see the world?

Is this a subtle nod towards racism or an unintended message with your choice of the word "color"? I can't tell.

If racism:

I've yet to see any studies supporting that it does. I'd argue quite the opposite actually: growing up in a ghetto "colors" my view in a far more harmful way than if I had grown up "privileged". It took many years to unlearn the extreme level of racist beliefs I held as a child/preteen that developed due to where I was raised. I've noticed most liberal, white far-left "politically correct" people are born and raised, ironically, in a high level of privilege (they can attend liberal arts colleges? that's already more privileged than me...) and in primarily white neighborhoods (SanFran).

If racism or not:

Regardless, focusing entirely on it makes the person an annoying and bitter person to be around to people outside of the social bubble with similarly held beliefs. This video sums up my views on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1qMtPrHoVs

>What evidence do you have that "extreme leftists"...

Sometimes you'll find that broad generalizations are not meant as literal blanket statements of each and every individual - but rather as a "case that generally holds true with few exceptions" and is a method of speech to quickly convey an idea without spending 5 paragraphs citing niche exceptions and perhaps "people of note" or an entire reply dedicated to clarifying the point. It's an important concept of communication to understand and makes discussions more brief, easier to read, and generally more to-the-point.

If I say "dentists recommend brushing and flossing" - is it assumed 100% of all dentists recommend brushing and flossing? Well, what if I found an exception (although perhaps a questionable dentist...)? It's a broad, blanket statement that someone might be able to cite some exceptions but for the most part holds true. The important concept is I don't have to clarify very specifically or add pointless exceptions to my statement.

Spend 3 months on the internet following any far left-leaning opinion pieces/social circles and the construction of their narratives - often repeated, cited, sourced, quoted, and paraphrased around these circles. Take a look at universities with "safe spaces" where "men are not allowed" (sometimes further clarified as: "white men are not allowed"). Read the self-congratulatory and mob-mentality of the comment sections of these articles.

The extreme leftists have defined themselves - and wear it with a badge of pride to show their extreme political correctness, even going as far as advocating censorship and 1984-esque enforcement. These are often-cited criticisms - that are largely ignored, excused, or brushed off with a redefining of terms to excuse themselves of any faults.

"Racism = racial prejudice + power" will lead you down a rabbit whole on its own of the lefts' attempts at redefining what racism is, to specifically exclude "white people" based on their "position of power". Regardless if said white person is even in a position of power (they are in power, always and implicitly, because they are white! /"not a racist statement")

Perhaps I'm wrong to call them "extreme leftists" - although that is the branding many of them have chosen to define themselves as. If that is your only criticism, blame them for hijacking the term. When speaking about the "extreme leftists", until today, I've never ran into an issue where the other person did not assume I was talking about the "Orwellian-censorship wanting Totalitarian-state supporting politically correct left who seem to be straight from 1984". That is how strong an identity they have outside of their own social bubble they choose to live in (since they block, censor, or talk down on any views that do not already match their own).

I hope this response helped clarify any issues you may have had. But I appreciate that not everyone wants to read a novel that spends several paragraphs explaining itself rather than the message it is trying to convey.