"Whites, it must frankly be said, are not putting in a similar mass effort to re-educate themselves out of their racial ignorance. It is an aspect of their sense of superiority that the white people of America believe they have so little to learn."

“The problems of racial injustice and economic injustice cannot be solved without a radical redistribution of political and economic power.”

“First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Councilor or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”.”

--Dr. Martin Luther King Junior

MLK Jr., famous for talking about how much he loves white moderates right

“Whites, it must frankly be said, are not putting in a similar mass effort to reeducate themselves out of their racial ignorance. It is an aspect of their sense of superiority that the white people of America believe they have so little to learn."

- Dr. Martin Luther King Junior

Unless you think the point of feminism (for example) is to make men second class citizens. That’s just not a thing. It’s a rhetoric created by assholes to get ignorant people on board with their continued grossness.

I think there may be some radicals who genuinely wish for that, but those don't represent the entire movement and usually only pay lip service to the cause where it aligns with their personal beliefs. They should be ignored.

There's also a psychological phenomenon that occurs in 'elite classes' where they think that someone getting more means they get less. They literally cannot fathom someone getting welfare without it affecting them negatively. It's one of the reasons why poor people still support Republicans.

Meanwhile, the Right want to pull down your trousers to check your "gender".

At the same time, privileged people will still sometimes feel a loss of something when you're portioning out a finite resource. So if a particular group is 25% of the population and they were getting 75% of the pie before and now they're getting 25% of the pie, that's a loss. It's a justified loss, but it's still a loss.

That said, there are other things like rights that are not finite in any meaningful sense of the word. When someone is feeling a loss because an oppressed group gained rights, it's usually because they're an oppressive asshole.

The issue is that people generally view their situation not by how much they have, but how much more they have than others.

Some people are that way, but not "people generally."

The problem with this graphics is that this is absolutely not what equity proponents are doing. What is shown here is individual approach. What equity supporters want to do is to group you according by things like skin color or gender, and provide support according that grouping.

For example, equality in income distribution is when help is given based on income of the individual. Equity is when help is given based on skin color to make average income of all skin colors the same.

The little guy should be hurt in the 3rd panel as well for the sake of accuracy.
I find that equity tends to create the illusion of opportunity rather than providing the actual support needed to allow the disadvantaged parties to properly take advantage of the opportunities, thus backfiring and hurting all parties.
For example, giving college spots to those who are unable to pass the entry bar rather than giving them the actual support they need to pass the bar in the first place, which ends up with the disadvantaged parties falling behind and taking opportunities away from those who did pass the bar. In the end, nothing gets solved.
See Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard.

Justice is clearly the better option.

This is also how I read it. I actually really appreciate attacking the idea of "white as default". It's kind of like how some gamers think representing anything besides the "default" demographic is "political".

I think this is the more revealing excerpt:

This is the defining irony of white film-making. The more oblivious your film is to matters of race, the whiter it plays. Because whiteness is often exactly that: the freedom not to see race, even when it’s right there in front of you.

Basically, being aware of whiteness makes for less racist movies. There's nothing wrong with white movies, but it's wrong when white movies pretend they're not white, but universal and default. The article concludes:

Instead, our twofold expectation should be this: 1) The industry affords more film-makers of colour the same creative freedoms and commercial opportunities that are now afforded white film-makers, and 2) That the film culture – including the film-makers themselves – develop the confidence, insight and language to discuss and dethrone white cinema.

This does not sound like racist dog-whistling or white supremacy to me.