Easy. He or she has a heart. He or she is an empathetic being, who feels the pain of others, and wants to stop it for them. — god must be atheist

Not to triple post, but I find this subject interesting.

There's about 38 million Americans under the poverty line. Obviously it's impossible to know all of them, and in turn care about them as individuals. To claim to care about them is really to to care about an abstraction, an idea. And the mark of a good person, according to the leftist, is that he or she genuinely cares about this group of people - not as individuals, because that would be impossible, but as a collective or in other words an idea/abstraction.

So it's not about empathy, at the root of it. Honestly speaking, it's about commitment to an idea or a principle. It's about solving an idea. Solving a problem. Lets leave empathy out of it.

I think the access to academics is a big part. If your worldview expands beyond yourself and you start to think in terms of benefiting the system that all are a part of instead of only benefiting yourself or your family, you start to move in a socialist direction. — Pro Hominem

Like this for example. This person is only concerned with their own welfare, and not that of the people around them. — Pro Hominem

I really like this response because it really captures the essence of it. Capitalists are not just wrong, they're bad people according to the thinking left-winger. They are egotistical and care less, if at all, about those around them. They're basically egotistical sociopaths.

If you were to ask me about my assessment of this issue maybe 10-15 years ago I would have said the exact same thing you're saying now. I get where you're coming from 100% and I'm glad you laid out the issue as you did here.

What makes people from wealthy, academical background lean left? — Ansiktsburk

I was raised in a upper middle class home and I used be a socialist and for much of my life I was on the left. Financially speaking everything was always taken care of for me and in seeing the wealth around me I didn't understand at a young age why poverty or homeless people had to exist. On top of that, I worked some crappy, low wage jobs with bad bosses which further solidified my allegiance to the left. My thinking was in a country as advanced and wealthy as the US, why do we still have poverty and homelessness? I was thinking about the big picture and principles first, and myself last. I also had no experience with poor people. They were just problems to be solved by giving them, as a collective, a certain amount of money or resources.

Somewhere along the line my thinking become more bottom-up. Instead of thinking about vast systemic changes to eliminate poverty, I started studying personal finance and decisions which could be made on an individual level. I actually met and talked to poor people (or atleast people from poor backgrounds.) I'm still down for some systemic changes, but I'm just a lot more careful about them. Every problem doesn't need to be immediately addressed with a scalpel. And I hate to say it but maybe some people are actually directly responsible for their own poverty and routinely choose materialism and status over long term financially health, and they know it.

Also young people don't pay taxes.

The field of philosophy, as an academic discipline, is traditionally anathema to this type of discourse, and there's a reason behind it. Traditionally philosophy, and also science, are predicated on the notions that anyone can make an argument - doesn't matter the background - and that argument is to be judged on its own merits.

On the other hand, if we're talking about racial/gender/ableist etc. privilege this type of dialogue necessarily values certain types of voices over others, and not necessarily unfairly. If I'm a disabled person - which I am - I'm extremely suspicious of a non-disabled person who claims to speak to my experience. I can say with confidence that it takes years and years for a non-disabled person to really understand - assuming they ever do - the disability. I personally only see this level of understanding in experts who have worked in the field for decades.

Even within a certain disability community the question of who gets the voice and who gets the representation is a pertinent one. We're not a monolith. We'll tend to share certain general perspectives but our opinions about the disorder/disability can vary very widely.

I don't understand why we're only talking about privilege along racial lines here. One of the biggest privileges in life is physical attraction and its something that is largely outside of our control. Each one of us is likely privileged and unprivileged in a billion different ways and yo focus exclusively on only one facet in a discussion thread about privilege in general seems like we're missing the bigger picture.

If values are not established by culture, where do they come from? Much fatalism you have here. I wonder if the people you find attractive in your culture would be equally attractive to the members of another culture? Some tribes drastically alter their bodies, if you are lacking these cultural alterations, it is doubtful you would be attractive to the people in that culture. — JerseyFlight

I just don't believe people are blank slates waiting to be filled up by whatever the culture presents. I think if we were we'd be seeing an insane degree of uniformity of thought and attitude within a culture when even within strong cultures we see a diversity of that if we dig below the surface. I know Steven Pinker and Chomsky have done some serious work on this, and their work shows that the mind comes pre-programmed, in other words some things are innate. Our minds are not just blank slates waiting for the world to write on anything them, and I honestly think this idea is dead scientifically speaking. Of course there's room for culture in influencing us but to say it's 100% is just too much.

I don't think what I'm saying it fatalism. Think of it this way: If we are just 100% culture, do we even have a self? If there's nothing permanent about you, then who are you? There is no you.

As for the tribe comment I'd just need to see more research done. There has been research done into what humans find attractive, and there has been some research which claims a universality of some features such as facial symmetry being attractive. I know of no culture where men prefer women with masculine faces. I'd like to see culture try to teach that attraction.

EDIT: Consider homosexuality - it exists in every culture. If people are truly blank slates and endlessly malleable then we should be able to cure homosexuality through social reprogramming. These efforts have failed miserably where ever they've been tried.

I don't believe that physical attractiveness is just a cultural phenomenon. I don't believe humans are endlessly malleable through culture, either. There are biological realities which you're going to need to deal with at some point. I get it, you can try to use culture to patch them over or make them less of an issue, but the fact of the matter is these realities are intractable features of life and unless you want to exterminate the entire human race you will have to deal with them.

These biological realities help form our individual identities whether we like them or not, and despite all of this talk of "progress" we really don't know what's truly going on inside the minds of others. To claim that we just need the right culture to bring about complete uniformity of attitude or instinct or reaction towards something is just too much for me, personally. I don't mind if you believe but it's just not worth it for you to try to convince me on that.

Got it, so we just need to teach people to value quality of character over attractiveness and we're all set. Attractiveness no longer matters.

You really understand humanity.

It'll no longer make a difference whether a girl is a 9 or a 2, us men will only judge her on her character and not even notice her outward appearance.

If you are more specific about the problem, but then again how you could you be, Peterson told you not to be specific, then I can do my best, using my intelligence, to tell you what I think we need to do to fix it. — JerseyFlight

Great, well I'm thrilled to hear it. I love getting specific, there's just so many issues to address.

Lets start with the issue of attractiveness in men. Now I want you to consider the full spectrum here - everything from models to.... you ever see 90 day fiancee? Just google search "ed from 90 day fiancee."

I don't think I need to go over with you how attractiveness is an obvious advantage socially speaking, and it's also one in the workplace.

In any case how do you create a world where attraction is no longer an advantage for one and a disadvantage for another?

Jersey, I'm asking you how do we, as a society, fix the inequality/unfairness/oppression of these issues? You say you want to target all forms of oppression. Tell me how we fix this.

We have not already done this. We have come nowhere close. Answer me this: Why are there still ugly people? Why are there still tall people? Why are there still charismatic people while others are socially awkward? Why do we have those who can speak fast while others must speak slow? Why do some have to worry about their tourettes while others don't? Why are some people born with certain genetics which makes it easier them to lose weight?

You want equality and absence of oppression? Start there.

That's all fine and well, but if he admits there's a problem, which he does, he even validates the word "oppression," what caused it? Is his approach to the problem actually targeting the source? We already know the answer, his reply is, forget about the complicated details of reality and just fall back into the Matrix. — JerseyFlight

I think he'd say there's a billion different reasons that could have caused one to be "oppressed." I think if we, as a society, were to honestly target all of the sources of oppression we would turn into something like the dystopia Kurt Vonnegut described in Harrison Bergeron - basically a society where everyone is equally disadvantaged by reducing everyone to the lowest common denominator.

EDIT: This is not to say that Peterson is against fighting oppression. Of course he supports fighting certain forms of it.

Peterson isn't specifically talking about the culture here, he would consider it just a general truism of life that people are oppressed or fall short of the mark in one way or another. It probably doesn't even matter the type of society.

It's interesting that you say he reinforces and justifies privilege. Where do you get that? I get it if it's just a general critique of capitalism or the right but if we're talking about Peterson specifically his position is a little more nuanced.

Here's a segment I was able to dig up from Peterson on privilege. You only need to watch from the 2 minute mark to around 3:30 or maybe 4 minutes (someone made a song out of this, by the way. You can see it on youtube.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-8slOBngqk

I don't troll often but this thread was just too much for me.

In this moment I am euphoric, not because of any phony God's blessing but because I am enlightened my own intelligence.

Which seems to be saying that if you don't set yourself in order first, your arguments are going to be bad. — Echarmion

Good advice, certainly, but what if an unordered mind comes up with something rather important? — Echarmion

Ok, this is not what Peterson is saying. Of course a disordered person can produce a good argument. Peterson isn't concerned here with the type of arguments being produced by a disordered person.

Peterson is speaking to the self here more as a therapist or a coach, not as a philosopher who is purely concerned with the rigor of one's arguments. Nor is he speaking as a political activist who is trying to rally people for some cause and will use whoever he can get. He is saying before you actively try to change the world and put yourself in those leadership positions maybe take a step back and gain some maturity and perspective.

I kind of agree with you. If I heard a political theorist say something like "before you criticize some government, put yourself in order" I would be suspicious. However, with Peterson he begins the chapter talking about people who are just anti-being. It's not a political thing. There are some people who just criticize virtually everything because they fundamentally hate being. Take off your philosopher goggles and put on your therapist/life coach ones. Keep in mind that for Peterson the good precedes the right/the rational.

So, what does he say, in your interpretation? What's the connection between setting your house in order and criticizing the world? — Echarmion

He means set yourself/your mindset in order.

Peterson starts off the chapter talking about the Columbine killers and Carl Panzram - both of whom hated being and described so in detail in their manifestos or biographies. The Columbine killers hated pretty much everything. And they were right in regard to a lot of it - life is often pain, life is unfair, injustice happens constantly. But if you're just criticizing and coming at things from this type of perspective it's a monstrous and nihilistic way to approach the world even if you happen to share some opinions with normal, rational folks.

In politics there might be some use for these people, but Peterson is always speaking to the individual. Political philosophy or theory tends to deal in groups, Peterson does not.

Chapter 6 of Peterson's book is "Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world" but he obviously doesn't mean that literally. He's not saying only people whose houses are 100% clean are entitled to try to change the world. Nor does he says that only people whose family lives are perfect are entitled to opinions.

In the chapter he uses Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn as a model: Solzhenitsyn didn't just curse his fate in the gulag, he poured over the details of his own life "with a fine toothed comb" and engaged in the type of self-reflection to make his work a masterpiece. All Peterson seems to be asking is that people approach the world from a standpoint involving humility and responsibility before criticizing the world. He's not saying you're not allowed to, I don't know, raise awareness for the chinese concentration camps if you're family life isn't perfect.

That's a good question. Acknowledgment would be a good first step. I don't know exactly what it implies but the fact that it exists means it should probably be acknowledged and we can go from there in regard to the individual trait we're talking about (race, class, physical difference, disability, etc.)

Height privilege is absolutely a thing, especially among men. Taller men are privileged.

In my mind though the existence of a privilege doesn't imply reparations though.

I have no problem with building solidarity among the underprivileged, the problem is when (or if) it descends into a kind of provincialism... all in all though a totally worthy and fine goal.

I agree with what you're saying about the stairs. The ability to use the stairs is a privilege. The ability to walk unimpeded is also a privilege. Even if stairs were no longer a thing, privilege still exists for those who can walk normally in a world where walking is still important. Even if the entire world were a flat, even surface those who can walk comfortably certainly still have privilege. Do you disagree?

Moral relativism in my view, is just saying, hey, morality is changing according to a variety of factors and this is observable. — Judaka

Yes, morality has changed. What you're describing here is descriptive moral relativism (just basically a factual description of the world, yes, moral norms have changed and continue to change). When philosophers argue against moral relativism they're arguing against prescriptive moral relativism: The view that morality on a fundamental level is always to be viewed relative to something (usually to some time or place) and that other standards cannot be privileged over that.

I don't know if there are any implications to it. It's still a useful thought experiment to try to put yourself in someone else's shoes and consider that you're only one consciousness out of many which has been born into a certain set of circumstances and faced with a certain set of experiences which mold the individual. If there are any philosophical implications that you can come up with from your thought than let me know.

I don't even know what we're talking about anymore because you before said you didn't want to call just any desirable attribute a privilege but now you are calling the lack of an undesirable attribute a privilege and so I assume anything goes now. — Judaka

Any desirable attribute is not a privilege, for instance take a professional football player. The hard work & sacrifice he's put into it isn't privilege... what's privilege is the genetics behind that or that his parents could afford football camp. Privilege is about things you don't control. If it's positive and outside of your control, yes, it could be considered a privilege. Even the absence of a negative could be considered a privilege - that's why I'm saying the modern discourse about privilege - if we're being honest with it - should be expanded tremendously. That is - if we want to work within this framework.

I think Asif is right in saying that you are in a sense by asking intelligent people to view their intelligence as an unearned advantage, you are asking for things like guilt and shame. — Judaka

I don't mean for it to come across that way just like I'm not asking people who are not in chronic pain to feel guilty about that. I consider it a privilege that I'm not in chronic pain, but again it would seem ridiculous to suggest that people without chronic pain should feel guilty about not having it. I don't personally feel guilty for not having a billion different disorders. It would be like guilty overload.

And if someone did receive a huge advantage and now they're proud of a good placing, what a prick. Of course, you did well, you have all these unearned advantages. — Judaka

Someone is still praiseworthy for turning, say, a $1 million into $5 million - it's an excellent job, but I think we'd both agree this is different from someone reaching $5 million who started out with $10. I'm not here to belittle those who were born into privilege and stayed in privilege, but someone who overcame a legitimate obstacle to achieve is super praiseworthy. There's something special about that (I deal a lot in the disability community, by the way so that's my frame of reference.)

Dating, for example, I am sympathetic here because it is inherently competitive and being attractive is an advantage, period. Your characterisation seems apt here, you are not creating competition, it already existed. — Judaka

Yep, generally speaking attractiveness is an advantage although there may be cases where it isn't. Similarly, being born into wealth or having intelligence (intelligence is largely genetic, by the way) is generally an advantage, although not always. You won't be capable of holding anything beyond an entry level position with an IQ of less than 80. They won't even let you into the military.

Let me briefly touch on your suggestion of "lucky", this is not something I would give you grief over but you have to see how different this is compared to "unearned advantage". There is no competition, there is no hierarchy, there is only gratitude, it is a very positive perspective and I can't really find fault in it. — Judaka

You can have gratitude, I have no problem with that. I can accept the gratitude line of thought. Personally, I just find the concept of privilege more interesting to explore because it has more of a social element to it. You can reject the framing of privilege all you want, but that's basically how discourse is going around today so.... if you're going to engage with a left-winger it's gonna be difficult if you just reject their concepts entirely, but each to his own.

It's like you think privilege is just this totally neutral, meaningless word. — Judaka

Then call it something else, I don't care. The gist is that it's an unearned advantage - it's something you don't need to worry about. Would it be okay with you if we didn't call it privilege and just called it something beneficial that you didn't earn through hard work? Maybe call it a perk? Unearned advantage? Maybe even just "lucky." Like "I'm lucky that I don't...."

EDIT: It's definitely not about making you feel guilty either. For instance, if you don't have chronic pain you have a "privilege" or a "perk" or whatever you want to call it - but nobody is saying that people without chronic pain should feel guilty for not having it - that's ridiculous. Nor is the implication that people without chronic pain should drink bleach and damage their organs in order to have it and be "equal."

It doesn't seem like it is making much of a difference for you, whether you call it a privilege or something else. I feel attractiveness is really in a league of its own though, it's easy to paint a really bleak picture there though for some it's a bit controversial. — Judaka

Yeah, call it whatever. If you're not comfortable calling it privilege then I don't really care.

Attraction does matter, I agree.... I don't know if I would say that it's in a league of its own though. By "attraction" I'm referring more to the physical part of it. Part of the reason why so many people understand the "privilege" (or whatever you want to call it) of being attractive is that it's basically universal - everyone falls somewhere on the attraction scale. If you want to talk about attraction I'm happy to hear your thoughts on it.

There's a billion things we don't think about though, and that's a privilege. For instance, I started watching a streamer with tourettes syndrome lately and it's allowed me to familiarize myself a little more with that reality. Tourettes is a neurological condition and there's no real reason my brain couldn't have been like that and I can imagine it would have been extremely difficult and scary to not control what comes out of your mouth. Thankfully, I don't have to worry about that. That's privilege.

But if you are referring to people who are just normally less intelligent then how is that unjust for them? That is what they are. Doesnt mean low intelligence means oppressed or disadvantaged. — Asif

Intellectually disabled people can't hold the vast majority of jobs. I know someone who's intellectually disabled (IQ of around 65) and the vast majority of jobs are beyond his capability. The military won't even accept people with an IQ under 80 to use as cannon fodder. I'm not talking about people who are a little slower than average.

It doesn't really matter what I consider intellectually disabled and I don't see what you're getting at here by asking me this. Like would it really matter if I said an IQ of under 80? 70? 65?

I would rather just appreciate different peoples talents rather than just talk about difference being inequality in some unjust unfair way. — Asif

I would rather appreciate people's talents too, Asif. I'd rather sit down and have a beer with someone who's very talented in some field and just enjoy a chat with them. We can talk about whatever, it doesn't matter, all I am saying here is that privilege exists.

For instance, I play chess. I've been playing chess since I was around 5 and I'm a fairly competitive player. However, regardless of how much I or a billion other people were to practice, we will simply never be as good as people whose minds work in extraordinary ways which allow them visualize and assess positions 5 or 10 moves down the line. Again, I don't spend all my time going around and complaining about that, I just want to say that it's there. Similarly, there are people who are intellectually disabled and there's nothing they did to deserve that it's just life.

Alright, well, I've made my case. I understand it might be psychologically healthier for someone to ignore the idea of privilege and the idea can certainly be used in toxic ways as we both realize, but I think on a fundamental level reality needs to be acknowledged. It's not about politics - everyone immediately realizes the privilege of a tall, good-looking man versus a guy who's like 5'4 even if he's decent looking. IMO, simply describing that as a "difference" doesn't quite do it justice given the difference in treatment between these two men.

These differences aren't always physical either - being a native English speaker is definitely a privilege in today's work environment.

In any case that's just how I see things - I know I could become bitter if I were to focus on the areas where I'm not privileged and envy those with privilege - but I have better things to do. I accept reality as best I can and try to work on myself while acknowledging the world is just patently unfair. We pursue our best selves and our goals even in the face of this reality. It wouldn't even matter if we were in the most idyllic version of a socialist utopia - difference is implicit in humanity, and from that - inequality and unfairness.

I have told you, this is not an issue about what the truth is, it's an issue of framing and interpretation. — Judaka

Do you have an alternative framing that you'd like to present?

How we look at attractiveness and intelligence is changed when we describe it or even refer to it as an "unearned advantage" — Judaka

I'm not saying that beauty or intelligence is entirely privilege, but there's a part of it that is.

Privilege is not a pursuit of the truth, privilege is not a truth, it is a framing and interpretation issue. Privilege does not exist in the real world, it is something we create as a characterisation of things that exist in the real world. It is a category, a group of physical attributes or social circumstances that constitute some kind of special right or benefit. — Judaka

All I mean by privilege is something that is an unearned advantage in some regard. The central idea behind it is that it's unearned - some have it, some don't.

We can analyse the effects of intelligence and attractiveness, we do, in fact, but they're separate things, nothing is really gained by throwing them into a "privileges" category. — Judaka

All privilege is about is recognizing unearned advantages. A beautiful model likely put in a ton of work to become a model - dieting, fasting, working out, surgeries, etc. etc. but the fact of the matter is none of this would have really mattered if she had been born with vastly different genetics or she had a terrible skin condition or was raised poor and couldn't get proper nutrition which had long lasting impacts. Where the model is now (with her incredible beauty) may have been years of hard work, but it seems dishonest to me to completely remove luck from the equation. I'm not saying everything is a privilege, I'm just asking you to acknowledge the things behind success or better treatment which are outside of our control.

People aren't just different - they're different in ways that clearly beneficial to some group and not beneficial to another. That's the point behind privilege. The context often matters, though.

Intelligence and beauty are the result of both hard work but also nature favoring you in some way. Money doesn't hurt either.

I am sorry to rebuke you when it seems you are trying to agree with me but how can you say that categorising privileges is a pursuit of the truth? — Judaka

It's fine, I'm not demanding that you agree with me. I hope I've made my stance a little clearer with this post. If you don't like the word "privilege" you can just use "unearned advantage."

What is the benefit in sorting people into privileged and unprivileged categories? I only see spite, jealousy, discrimination, self-esteem issues, self-confidence issues and the like. — Judaka

I understand how the thinking can be toxic - we shouldn't be going around thinking about how someone is privileged and another person is a victim... again, since we're both more on the right we can cut out the leftist bashing.... What I'm interested in here is truth.

It's about characterising these characteristics, are they blessings, privileges, are they just part of who you are and what are the implications for someone who has these characteristics within each framing? Do people have a responsibility due to their wealth? That's part of what is being discussed here. — Judaka

This is a question that is worth being discussed. Personally, I don't think someone having privilege entails that they need to share it or that they're guilty in some way. We're probably on the same page with this.

If someone wants to be proud of their intelligence or attractiveness, let them be, what's the point in insisting that it's a special privilege of theirs? It is just part of who they are anyway, it does in fact belong to them and there's nothing malicious about it.

Pride is a completely separate issue and I don't want to get into a different topic. It isn't even about insisting - verbally or through some other medium - that the person in question has a special privilege. It's simply about acknowledgment if we want to stay faithful that we're pursuing truth here (this is a philosophy forum.) I think, strictly speaking, intelligent and beautiful people do have a privilege in those regards. Average looking and people with average intelligence also have privilege, but not as much as the elites. Even if you took a special ed class you could still discuss who has privilege within that context - it's all relative.

We don't need to draw implications from this, imo. If we put on our "anti privilege" hats and start attacking all forms of privilege we might as well just be living in Kurt Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron" universe.

I accept that systemic racism exists but that doesn't mean I accept the concept of white privilege - because it's a terrible, insidious framing. The characterisation is not justified simply because part of the argument has unquestionable facts. This really extends to the entire conceptualisation of privilege except in perhaps the most extreme of cases such as children of the uber-rich. — Judaka

I don't spend a lot of time in leftist circles... whatever they do is up to them. I'm not interested in defending whatever Banno is arguing or whatever.... the way that I've framed the idea of privilege makes sense to me and it's certainly interesting to explore the idea further and hopefully we can avoid overly toxic framings of the issue. Sure, it's often psychologically burdensome to look at the ways you're unprivileged, but I find it fascinating to listen to other people talk about the ways their identities intersect because it allows us a window into another world.

EDIT: One more thought for the road - the ability to dispassionately approach a topic is likely a privilege. If someone is, say, a rape survivor they're probably not going to approach the subject of sexual assault from however a textbook or studies convey the info.... the subject is going to be invariably colored through their own experiences and emotional processing of that. In that sense, the study of philosophy - i.e. a dispassionate and objectively rational approach to the world or truth - is likely a privilege on certain topics. If your own experience with a subject is so personal and therefore emotional you're not really doing philosophy in the traditional sense, you're more like writing a memoir.

There is no great revelation to be had by knowing the conceptualisation of privilege in so far as people are born with advantages over others.

Yes, and there's also the social part to it - how these biological traits or other unearned traits are treated in society.

Privilege does not do this and has absolutely no interest in privileges that do not fit into leftist identity politics theory. — Judaka

I get it - you don't need to argue against leftwing formulations of identity politics or privilege
with me because I'm not on the left.

It is absolutely asking you to see individuals by the groups they belong to and in this case that is by their race, sexual orientation and gender. — Judaka

I agree - but what if we expanded this list? That's why I was saying earlier that the idea of privilege isn't in and of itself a leftist fantasy, and interestingly a trait can be a privilege in one circumstance and not in another. Identifying people purely through the lenses of race, sex, and sexuality is obviously stupid and I think we both agree so we can drop this point.

I actually did go to a presentation on intersectionalism last year and to their credit the speakers did extend beyond race, sex, and sexuality. Often class is brought in (always interesting to hear about, because with class often comes culture) and the speakers did touch on physical traits and the expectations that come along with those. It was genuinely interesting to hear how these identities intersected. Whether we like it or not, we often categorize those around us by these superficial traits and we refine this conception as we get to know that person more.

However, privilege is a warped framing with no nuance or depth, it characterises history through the oppression of groups over other groups. It is not simply saying "racism, hatred of homosexuality and sexism are wrong".

Obviously this is an unhealthy framing of things but if the idea of privilege is understood as an unearned advantage or a perk makes sense then we should probably address it and not cover our eyes and call it liberal bullsh*t.

I think there's some interesting conversation to be had here when we expand the idea of privilege. I also think while someone having X privilege is an overall benefit, there may very well be downsides or extra baggage associated with it.

What I would like to hear is a defence of your framing and interpretation, that is "privilege" because that's actually what needs to be defended. — Judaka

I'm not responding to defend Banno and I'm not too familiar with how the concept of privilege is used in left wing circles, but it seems to me that the idea in and of itself isn't too bad. There's never been a doubt to me that people are privileged or unprivileged in various ways and I'd say that virtually everyone is privileged in some ways and unprivileged in others.

The way I see it, virtually everybody is privileged in some ways and un-privileged in others. Many feminists today pride themselves on being "intersectional" which really just means they consider a number of factors that extend well outside of race - class, gender, disability, and we can even go further with that - looks, health, hair, etc.

I definitely consider myself privileged in some ways and unprivileged in others. Thankfully I don't have any serious health issues and I don't live everyday in chronic pain (I know people who do.) This is absolutely a privilege; some people are just born with terrible ailments which cause them pain throughout their lives.

I have no problem admitting privilege in certain regards and non-privilege in others. Someone calling me "privileged" as an insult always rings hollow. You can call them privileged right back even if they're black and poor and female.

Stairs provide a simple instance of how the built environment systematically privileges certain body-types. — Banno

True.

It's not something the privileged would even notice were it not pointed out to them. — Banno

Also true.

That's how privilege works. — Banno

Yes, having the ability to walk is absolutely a privilege. A lot of people don't notice it.

The thing about disability is that it's not only about people with mobility issues... it involves everything from mental disabilities to speech disabilities to emotional ones... all I'm asking for you is to keep flushing out your logic. Your basic logic seems to be "Well, if X (with X being something in society) is easier for those who don't suffer from some disability (let's call that disability Y) then it's ableist." Just formulate your basic logic, please.

By the way, upwards ramps also favor certain body types. Actually, so do normal flat surfaces.

Stairs present an obstacle to a certain group of disabled people making them ableist, so is any man-made thing or human convention or practice that presents an obstacle to a certain group of disabled people also ableist?