I thought I was fairly clear that those were implications of the terms you used, rather than actual quotes. Allow me to clarify.
An assertion of "white male privilege" implies that the the person so labeled has, as a white male, been sheltered, insulated, or conditioned to the point that they are unable to perceive blatant injustice, unwilling to perceive that injustice, or have become supportive of and dependent on that injustice. It further implies that whatever authority that person might have in the context of the conversation at hand is unearned, and would not exist but for the ethnic circumstances of that person's birth. It is often paired with the implication that the person who is labeling the other as "privileged" has, if that person is also a white male, elevated himself above the stigma of white male privilege through his virtuous character.
My point is that all of us should persuade each other or not based on the strength of our arguments and not be labeled in an effort to categorically dismiss our perspective. You have a lot (a lot) of points you can make and rhetorical devices at your disposal without resorting to, essentially, identity politics.
I'm going against my better judgment here and responding to this because it's something that seems to trip a lot of people up whenever it gets brought up.
As a person who is neither white, male nor straight, I've participated in the privilege conversation many times, and I've never seen it as an indictment of someone's character except for when that person has engaged in behavior that strikes multiple participants as willfully ignorant and lacking in empathy. Generally speaking, I've seen "Check your privilege!" used as a way to remind the person it's directed at to stop and think about what they're saying, who they're saying it to, and the potential impact of their words. At most, I've seen it said in a moment of frustration after calmly explaining things doesn't work, particularly in a situation where people who are already exhausted and dispirited have to once again "educate" people who claim to want to understand but act like they already know everything.
While I've since stopped using tepid terminology like "white privilege" or "male privilege," they mean none of those things you are projecting onto them, which multiple resources explaining them have gone to great lengths to make clear. All the talk about privilege means is that you're more likely to have serious blinders about noticing the thousand little things that you benefit from without knowing about it and disadvantage others without you noticing. There are things you literally don't have to think about or account for on a day to day basis because of the way our society functions. That's all it means. Anything more than that is beyond the scope of what the terms means.
It's a lot like the difference between someone who inherits a house that's paid for compared to someone who's homeless. The broader issue of a society that allows one person to have property passed to them while another doesn't have a home is another conversation, but on a societal level, it's still a significant benefit to inherit property with equity, and it's a significant disadvantage not to have a home at all. The homeless person makes decisions on a daily basis that a person who inherited a house doesn't even have to think about. When the home equity beneficiary runs into trouble is when they act like they know what it's like to be homeless because they went camping one time, or get bent out of shape when a homeless person says, "Being homeless affects every aspect of my daily life in ways most people who aren't homeless don't even see."
To bring this to the original topic, it's my overall impression that most of the folks quibbling with Mearls' tweet are not people who have the experience of being a woman hired into a position of influence in a male-dominated industry. To me, the behavior he's talking about is parallel to the behavior I've observed or heard about in other industries, and the sexism or flat-out misogyny behind it flashes like big, neon signs that read, "NO GIRLS ALLOWED" and "YOU'RE NOT WELCOME HERE" or "THIS GAME BELONGS TO THE BOYS." One or a handful of instances like that is annoying. Dozens, hundreds or thousands of them would make me more than a little prickly, and I would be far less diplomatic than Mearls in my response to the people doing it and the people who got all up in their feelings and made it all about them.
Sure, WotC is in the business of gaining and retaining customers, but some sorts of customers are liabilities to the open, inclusive game D&D aims to be.
