The promotion of "us vs them" attitudes is usually justified on the basis of some lofty principle. Particularly "truth." I guess that is the core of the disagreement. I don't think we see it as a "promotion" of those attitudes. If anything, I think a proper understanding of privilege reduces the us vs. them attitude, as you can't understand it without seeing how you also benefit, often unwillingly, from another form of privilege.
I don't see this as something to celebrate.
I will definitely agree that a shallow understanding could lead to promotion of antagonistic, but I'd never defend a shallow understanding of anything. After all, a shallow understanding runs counter to the idea of promoting truth.
Per usual, Wise Son said this more clearly. That is, IAWWS. Shocking, I know.
If you prefer to think of it as disadvantage instead of privilege, that's fine. We agree that we're talking about two sides of the same coin. By the same token, if I prefer to express the concept as privilege instead of disadvantage in a given situation, why is that wrong? Understanding others' perspectives is one of the purposes of dialogue. Sharing perspectives is to me the antithesis of divisiveness. Indeed, I believe that mutual understanding is the only foundation of true unity.
If you are wary of the term white privilege because of the way others have used it, I can understand that. That is not my intent nor Wise Son's. (I feel safe in saying that on his behalf.)
I believe, or rather, hypothesize, that at root, you don't trust my sincerity. That is, that I mean what I say at face value. And that's not an unreasonable position. After all, I have mocked your ideas on occasion on the forum. All I can tell you is that I do try to state things as I see them as accurately as I am able. It's an ongoing endeavor. You'll have to make your own judgments about the results. I'm OK with that.