dust1n
Zindīq
That's just one example, the broader point is that unearned advantages are taken away, while disadvantages are corrected by elevation of the disadvantaged.
Again... there is nothing about unearned advantages that suggests they are "taken away."
Whether person A is called advantaged over person B, or person B disadvantaged in comparison to person A, it doesn't rely on how responds to either one of those wordings. My question is what is different about person A having the advantage as oppose to person B having the disadvantage. I'm not asking how one might or how one should respond to either scenario.
The other issue is that it suggests the privilege is the deviation, while disadvantaged status is normative.
I don't know what "it" refers to, thus I have no idea how "it" suggests anything about privilege.
But it is not a privilege to be free from racial profiling, for example, or racist prosecution. That's a right, not a privilege.
No, it's a privilege. A right is something a government recognizes as a privilege to it's citizens, however it defines it. A privilege could be a right, but a privilege would be an access to a means of accomplishing some goal or acting in some way without the inequitable hindrance of society, whether it's a right or not.
You could have a law that decrees it illegal for segregation in the school system. You have a right. Or the school system could be de facto segregated despite the law, where one segregation gets more resources than another. The population that gets the more resources would be having a privilege, because it's access equips that population more fully for a means of accomplishing some goal or acting in some way without the inequitable hindrance of society.
I wonder why advocates insist on the privilege language when it is so clearly a poor method of communicating these issues.
Except it's clearly not for so many people.