[_bxg1]

I think "a lot of people" is an over-statement, I don't think an intrinsically broken moral judgement made by a minority of people should be allowed to delegitimize the real issue, and I don't think the OP was talking about anything but the real, legitimate issue.

Privilege is nothing but an acknowledgement that some people have advantages in life that they didn't earn. There is no possible world in which it doesn't exist, and almost by definition its holders can't usually be blamed for holding it. But we can a) take steps as a society to decrease its impact in various ways, and b) see it as a reality-check on social-darwinist or meritocratic thinking.

[motohagiography]

There is no real or legitimate issue about how attractiveness is somehow "unearned," as though it should be earned, I can only presume through labour, and probably struggle, though it is not clear from whom one might earn it. Perhaps the forces of history inevitably closing in on a dying class? The idea of privilege is an artifact of that ideology and it's the defining attribute of an antagonist. Is it useful? It is a tool that is applicable in some limited instances, but applying it to the alleged "privilege" of beauty seems like that old adage of when all you have is a hammer and sickle, everything looks like a kulak.

[_bxg1]

The OP gave a clear example of how awareness of this bias could help real people:

> In a meta analysis of the role of attractiveness in criminal sentencing, it was found that unattractive people received 120–305 percent longer sentences than attractive people.

So coming up with a way to factor physical appearance out of courtroom proceedings could dramatically improve justice system outcomes. There's nothing hand-wavy or insidious here. I really can't figure out where your hangup is, and I think I'm going to stop engaging with this conversation because it feels like a waste of time and energy.