1/ Common pattern in academic arguments:

"Your surface claim has some unsavory connotations/implications that you don't need to make. All the things you want can be had without making that claim. (unless you have some ulterior motives you haven't mentioned)."

2/ @danieldennett makes this move on the free will issue.

3/ Non-cognitivists make this move in meta-ethics.

4/ My impulse is to take a similar tack when people say things like "all whites are racist". Show them all the things I'm willing to agree with that overlap with their extreme claim, but don't require the extreme claim.

5/ For instance, I can grant: "some whites are racist", or "whites as a group have privilege", or "most white individuals have counterfactual privilege", or "institutional bias still exists, and, where it exists, it should be fixed" or "most whites will show bias in an IAT".

6/ This establishes some common ground (hopefully) and narrows down any remaining disagreement to more difficult, and (perhaps) less important ground.

7/ If the remaining gap between the positions still seems important, let them make the case, but they must point to things I haven't already granted.

One of two things should happen if they remain engaged:

8/

A) They will point to some new relevant considerations (perhaps even winning me over),

B) We will discover that the remaining difference is mostly about word usage,

9/ Once we get to B, we can focus the debate on the "Politics of Unsavory Connotations".

(end)