El Reg commentators are generally a pretty reasonable bunch, but there's something about this stuff that sends a lot of them into a frothing rage. My middle-aged whiteness here won't protected me from being punished with downvotes for saying this, but:
1) The point of diversity initiatives is not to "punish you for the sins of your ancestors" as one commentard below has said. It really is an attempt to level the playing field, a playing field that white heterosexual men (like me!) barely ever recognise as actually being tilted. Sometimes these efforts can be pretty ham-fisted, and if it tips into open discrimination against white folks, well, that is also wrong.
2) Somebody below complained that they literally "could not be heard" because they were white and middle aged. Well, that doesn't seem very fair, but welcome to the world as perceived by most women, which is even worse if you are any colour of woman other than white.
3) The term Social Justice Warrior really irritates me. It seems some of the people chucking it around really are "snowflakes" to pick up another pejorative term which started out with the alt-right. They pick up their ball and go off in a huff whenever anyone points out that large parts of the world of work are still overwhelmingly run by and for white men.
4) White privilege is becoming a problematic term. I think MacPherson's formulation of "institutional racism" in his report into the botched Stephen Lawrence enquiry is a much more precise and accurate way of defining the problem. It also allows us to admit that institutional racism is not something only practiced by white people, but can also be found alive and kicking in many Asian countries. It also doesn't imply that all white people are privileged in other ways, which clearly many are not.
Oh, and Paris Hilton because I thought something decorative on this post might lesson the rage of some readers. OK guys, I don't mind your downvotes but at least try to keep your replies civil.