> No. That's a bizarre concept concocted by angry people on the Internet who have overdosed on Tumblr, attempted to derive a first-principles explanation for why people appear to believe strongly in the importance of otherkin rights, and arrived along the way at the notion that "privilege" means white people have done something intrinsically wrong just by being white.

You are making many assumptions on my beliefs, which are not true (Strawman!)

> Privilege as used in the real world (leaving out, perhaps, postmodern literature) is a simple, common-sense observation. Having privilege isn't wrong or evil; it's unavoidable.

Yet it's never used in the context of being grateful for the things one has going for them, but always used to discuss what others have received. "Privilege" is always tinged with negative connotations. It's always something that requires you to give away something else (going at the back of the BLM demonstration, for example, or "shutting up" and letting "less privileged" people speak). It's used to shame or guilt people into things. You could probably show scientifically in a lab setting that reminding men of their "privilege" would quickly lower their testosterone levels, make them more passive and submissive, and more self-effacing. This is a case of "raising waves where there is no wind". You're pretending that you're just making people "more aware" of themselves and the world, when it goes much beyond that, psychologically. Unfortunately, most people don't understand the psychology behind "privilege", and just focus on the fact that "privilege" superficially sounds "rational".

> where people experience benefits clearly attributable to some privilege

"Clear" is wrong. The world isn't black and white.

> and then claim that people who don't receive those benefits don't deserve them, when really they just lack the privilege.

"Privilege" is the mirror narrative of the "you only have what you deserve" crowd. It's another side to the same coin. Empathic listening is the solution to both. To the latter, I say: "not everything went their way, they're doing their best, always be generous to those in need" and to the former, I say: "don't assume that someone who has more than you didn't work to deserve it". That would be a psychologically-correct position.

> Knowingly and deliberately protecting some privilege, overtly denying benefits and recognition to those without it so that you can remain a member of an elite

You don't need this whole "privilege" narrative for that, only empathic listening to both sides (the one who feels wronged and the one who's accused) and reaching a conclusion yourself. Wanting to fit everything into a simpler ideology of "privilege" is dogmatic.

It's really mind-boggling how deeply the "privilege" narrative has been anchored in the minds of people who see themselves as rational, which is very insidious. A proper understanding of psychology can simply neutralize this "privilege" narrative, which is not based in empathy, or in a correct understanding of people, but in browbeating.

Had to make another comment, since I reached the length limit.

> to jocks in high school

Also keep in mind that seeing everything under the lens of "power" is deeply misguided. You might say that the jock is "privileged", but he might have had a poor, neglectful, abusive childhood (trauma, which changes your brain deeply), and have as a result developed a more charming personality because his subconscious felt that this was the only way in which he would be accepted and loved. Some of the most sociable people you know are so because of a "people-pleaser" tendency and a desire to "fit in", not because they're on top of things, or more mature. I know some people who are very charming, more than the average, and well-respected by our friends. Yet I also know some things about their (painful) past, and wouldn't wish it on anyone. Would they then become "less privileged"? Except psychological pathologies (low self-esteem, excessive fears, reality distortion, trust disorders, inability to bond) are simply hereditary. If you were raised by parents that had very low self-esteem, were often overwhelmed, and had intimacy issues (meaning emotional, not physical; inability to give or receive love), you'll grow up with these exact same traits, or you'll be similarly wounded but in a different way than your parents. In addition, if your parents were neglectful or abusive, they likely grew up in a neglectful or abusive household, because psychologically wounded, decided to marry with an equally-wounded mate (as we all unconsciously seek to reproduce the nurturance-level of our childhood relationships in all relationships) and you'll raise wounded children in a low-nurturance family of your own. Who's "privileged", and who's not? Since psychological wounds are hereditary, there's no one to "blame", or more deserving of empathy than others. Other example: someone who was abused as a child goes on, as an adult, to abuse children himself. Most would see him as a monster, but I disagree. Gerry Spence said (paraphrased): "nobody is evil enough that you can't become empathic towards them if you really know them". His abusiveness towards others is his own doing, but it's also inseparable from what he went through as a vulnerable young child.

You simply can't make assumptions about people and judge them on a one-dimensional scale, and you doing so is disrespectful to them because it removes their humanity. And again, it doesn't come from a position of empathy on your part, which would require the use of empathic listening, indiscriminately. Everyone has a story.

I repeat my point that the "privilege" narrative is psychologically-incorrect and made irrelevant (or worse) if one understands psychology, and people, properly. That's the most central point of my claims.

You seem to mistake me from some r/TumblerInAction regular, which is just not where I'm coming from (not least because I don't go to reddit).

You reached the length limit for a reason.