We'll agree to disagree
In general, do you think that things like priming, framing and associations have a major impact on how people respond to messages?
I'll chime in here because I see an potentially endless loop that needs breaking...
Certainly one should acknowledge that how one approaches a topic with a person can predict how successfully one can communicate one's message. In many places there are whole realms of discussion which are considered inappropriate because they tend to create their own weather which in turn creates a great distraction from the intent of those engaged in that context.
But we can't let those contexts rule over other contexts. Certainly the existence of a religious discussion forum is precisely jyst such a context which gives us all a needed outlet that would otherwise be an undue stress on our family or co-workers or friends.
If the word privilege is a controversial one then this implies two things: it is one disruptive of mutual good will unless one knows one's audience would accept it and this disruptiveness is itself of interest especially if the term can be seen as a non-metaphorical or not derived from some historical use with malicious associations.
I would imagine that people found the notion that they were prejudiced to be equally offensive not long ago. To be judged regarding one's familial or group beliefs is to feel challenged in a way that seems like one is getting sucker punched or that someone is intruding their rights into a space within the end of your nose (so to speak). Addressing this predictable discomfort is important.
But as a case in point...if one is wondering what separates them from others they should be given pause by the notion that those who do not have those privileges have no problem whatsoever with that same term.
It is likely that each and every one of us has some context in which we are privileged and in which we are not. The 'privilege proselytizer' then would do well to identify another's lack of privilege and only mention their own privilege. This models the idea but minimizes the risk of offense.
We already have in many cultures a sense of responsibility toward others. We may have very personal feelings about when and how one is willing to give up one's own wealth to favor another. I have found it useful to tithe (set aside money for use to give to others and not use for myself or for my personal benefit). In tithing one makes a space in one's life to let go of what is truthfully yours voluntarily. In many ways such an act is liberating. Being only immersed in our own interest is a kind of psychological prison. But being dictated to about what one should give can also feel like a prison.
We have in the US two political parties which differ in a large degree on how government should play a role in our personal means of taking care of each other. As an Independent I have always felt that we should systematically ensure that the needs of others are met, but we should just as systematically guard against the abuse of that generosity.
In any case, recognizing the need to give to others is something that everyone believes in. Though methods may differ the concept should be accepted.
When it comes to a discussion of privilege one should guard against the idea that such conversations imply that an individual should be compelled to take, involuntarily, any act of self-sacrifice. There are more causes than anyone person could help. But recognition of a systemic problem does require the privileged to see their privilege so that they can be free t o choose to take action especially if it helps to fight an injustice or suffering. One does have some small element of control (one vote) to wield that may be seen as a significant, voluntary contribution that advances our common human values and helps to distribute our accidental personal advantages.
