I feel compelled to read articles about white privilege and social justice. When I do, it often feels like an act of self-abuse. I feel triggered and defensive. Still I feel compelled. This paper is an example. I believe the content is valuable for me to learn and internalize, yet the language triggers my defenses and makes it hard to listen for the value hidden within. Does my experience in reading reflect the story the paper tells? pdf 
I think what offends me about the current conversation about privilege is the way our language continues to divide us and build walls between us instead of inviting connection and community and sharing between different peoples. I don't think the paper specifically addresses that objection.
I have two experiences of being conspicuously white and one experience being publicly shamed as the symbolic fragile white man in the room.
In line to board a ferry crossing the Singapore Straight from Johor Barhru to Singapore, I stood roughly 8 or 10 inches taller than the 100 or 150 other passengers in line. I had the palest skin, lightest eyes, and was also conspicuous for being the only man wearing long hair in a pony-tail.
Disembarking a train in Slovakia, it was clear that to the Slovaks on the street, I stood out... conspicuously different. Yet I could not see why I was so conspicuous in this community. My skin was similar. Perhaps my hair slightly lighter shade of brown (no pony tail at this time in my life). This street was nowhere near as crowded as the line at the ferry in Johor Barhru. I wasn't close enough to people to know if I was taller or not. I couldn't see what might have been different about the clothes I wore. Yet it was completely clear that I was a stranger, an outsider.
I volunteered to teach math enrichment classes at the elementary school in my neighborhood, unaware at the time that the school was entrenched in social justice controversy: a school with 85% latino families & children in the middle of an immediate neighborhood of >90% white households. This stratification was embarrasing in the middle of progressive Boulder, Colorado. I found myself deeply involved in conversations among adults in my community aiming to change this demographic imbalance. At a public visioning meeting I hoped to build a bridge of understanding across the racial divide... unfortunately I began by saying it was hard to be a visible outsider in the school at which point I was interrupted with a public shaming. Even as it was happening, I could see the point: poor white man can't handle being in the minority. I felt misunderstood, not actually ashamed. I also felt surprised and confused that I wasn't feeling more threatened by the experience.
With years of reflection now, it was the first time I became aware of being a symbolic role in a public debate, not an individual. I was an icon of The Patriarchy and so shamed for being too fragile to endure the discomfort of being an outsider. What I thought was a bridge was perceived as yet another colonization and burned down.
Reminded of Parable of the Polygons because Ward wrote a wiki page about it. A helpful collection of simulations to explore models of emergent bias in a community. All models are wrong. These models are useful for building awareness of systemic bias.
I draw two lessons from the Polygons. One is the intended lesson: active practice of anti-racism may allow integrated communities to emerge.
The other lesson may be something of an opposite. Actively exclusionary language accelerates emergent dis-integration and segregation. I draw attention to the second lesson specifically because of the title of this page, the paper from which it came, and the book by the same author, Robin DeAngelo.
In her own promotion of the book (publications ) she writes:
"White people in North America live in a social environment that protects and insulates them from race-based stress. This insulated environment of racial protection builds white expectations for racial comfort while at the same time lowering the ability to tolerate racial stress."
My own experience described here agrees with her claim. I have counted only three occasions when I have experienced being a conspicuous outsider. The entire balance of my life I have been able to pass as an insider. Though I have felt substantial alienation on the inside, I can keep that experience to myself and move around in the world without seeing my own race.
The title and phrase "white fragility" appearing in the context of our 2019 political climate is an attack on the white people, though I want very much to believe the author does not intend to attack.
Growing up as a white man in Colorado, perhaps the clearest social expectation of me has been: "Man up!" or more often "Don't be a sissy!" That kind of language is how boys trying to become men, trying to prove they are men, pick fights. The vast majority of white men in this country will have deep scars of being separated from their peers for having failed to be man enough. Moreover, we men are offered no skills for facing or healing this emotional wound. We're expected to just shut up and take it like a man.
The title of this paper, and most of the language within takes on all of that meaning and experience for me. Is DeAnglo purposefully playing into that game? Is she hoping this language will act to dare us into the risk of facing systemic racism? It sure feels like she's just trying to pick a fight.
I believe strongly in the need for anti-racist behavior. It is why I try to read this kind of article and read through the fighting words for something helpful despite the profound resistance I feel.
I further believe that a title like white fragility and all it embodies is going to completely fail to motivate white people and especially white men to take up the challenge of anti-racism. Worse, I believe the parable of the polygons suggests it will actually accelerate our social division.