privilege - by definition - is
granted [by peers and society]
advantage - by definition - isn’t granted; it is inherent, discovered, created
the video is weighing
relative advantages under the guise of privileges, which distracts from and cheapens the reality of what privilege actually is.
the author is misleading (dare i say dishonest) for conflating/confusing these two words and their deeper meanings.
it attempts to shrink the elephant in the room and tuck it in the corner… but it’s still in the room
if a minority (ethnic/gender/sexual/religious/etc) is not granted specific privileges because the majority believes said minority doesn't deserve those privileges - whether fair or unfair, openly or secretly - while being granted such privileges themselves, then we must work to understand why that is and address it.
on the same token, if certain privileges are granted to a minority or majority, but not to others [for arbitrary reasons], we must again ask why and address it.
in my locale, as a well-spoken white American male with a local accent I don’t worry about being...:
- profiled as suspicious/dangerous by strangers on the street
- perceived as a possible thief browsing retail merchandise on racks and shelves
- an immediate threat when I reach into my pocket for my phone
...because i've been arbitrarily granted privileges
turn the tables and put the same me into a time and space where the majority sees me as a smooth-talking white devil.
assuming i'm a threat to them - for their own reasons - fair or unfair;
i am not granted any privilege in this context, yet i will retain certain advantages unrelated to privilege (e.g. i can evade them with my superior dexterity if they decide to apprehend me).
This is fundamentally what the video is about: [The Theory of?] Relative Advantage.