This strikes me as projection. If you pride yourself on being offended when you deem it proper to be offended, you'll be prone to interpreting others as being proud of not being properly offended, which itself offends you, which you're proud of, and so on. I don't care who you are; you do not have the right to have others take offense on your behalf.
But what motivates me to respond to this tripe at all is that it impels in me a phenomenon that I find fascinating. Reading the "Privilege is a concept so simple and obvious that most social scientists take it as axiomatic" bit, I have two immediate reactions...
1. No, they don't.
and
2. Why would I give a fuck what most social scientists think?
Now, my disregard (to some extent, anyway) for the work of social scientists is a bit nuanced and I don't want to go on a tangent to explain my position there, but it's not important for the sake of this point, so I'll skip it. What I find interesting here is that I have those two responses and that they don't support each other. They aren't mutually exclusive, but they are mutually irrelevant. If #1 is true, then I don't need to appeal to any position I might have on social scientists, because the initial statement was factually inaccurate anyway. And if #2 is true, then I don't need to bother with #1.
Anyway, this was still a piece of crap, but I wanted to use it because of that concept.
