> We can't possibly talk about having enough food, housing, safe interactions with the law, etc. as rights
For housing/food, sure - in the USian context it doesn't make sense to talk about such things as "rights" because they'd have to be provided by somebody else [0]. The existence of life's basic necessities is actually not guaranteed and it is worthwhile to remember that. (However this framework says nothing about the idea of distributing surpluses to people who couldn't otherwise afford it, just that it does not constitute a "right").
But inverting the sense and labeling their presence "privilege" is a completely regressive zero-sum framework, ultimately promulgated by political shills that are more concerned with bolstering their followers rather than actually fixing problems.
This is especially clear when talking about things that are rights, like say simply not being murdered (eg by the police). By labeling as "privileged" the people who are just not having their rights violated, the tone is set that they are the exception. The "privileged" group then checks out of the conversation (as they're being told that the problem does not directly concern them), while the ire of the "unprivileged" group is harmlessly directed at the "privileged" group instead of their actual oppressors.
[0] It's the distinction between saying whether a "right" to Internet access implies a free basic monthly service, or merely disallowing the possibility that one could be banned from the Internet via governmental action like an explicit law or "private" "three strikes" system.
For housing/food, sure - in the USian context it doesn't make sense to talk about such things as "rights" because they'd have to be provided by somebody else [0]. The existence of life's basic necessities is actually not guaranteed and it is worthwhile to remember that. (However this framework says nothing about the idea of distributing surpluses to people who couldn't otherwise afford it, just that it does not constitute a "right").
But inverting the sense and labeling their presence "privilege" is a completely regressive zero-sum framework, ultimately promulgated by political shills that are more concerned with bolstering their followers rather than actually fixing problems.
This is especially clear when talking about things that are rights, like say simply not being murdered (eg by the police). By labeling as "privileged" the people who are just not having their rights violated, the tone is set that they are the exception. The "privileged" group then checks out of the conversation (as they're being told that the problem does not directly concern them), while the ire of the "unprivileged" group is harmlessly directed at the "privileged" group instead of their actual oppressors.
[0] It's the distinction between saying whether a "right" to Internet access implies a free basic monthly service, or merely disallowing the possibility that one could be banned from the Internet via governmental action like an explicit law or "private" "three strikes" system.