[86J8oyZv]

Um, is your argument that "we could technically classify these random other things as 'privilege' if we really stretch the word, therefore more obviously problematic things related to privilege like family wealth, social status, and race don't need to be addressed?"

Because that's how it reads.

You also built a straw man by deliberately misunderstanding the word "equity." The word has been clearly defined since the Middle Ages and means simply "share of ownership." i.e. To be equitable, a business must pay all its employees both salary and shares in the company. Same as us software devs get.

[whatshisface]

Why is a lucky genetic draw less of a privilege than a large inheritance?

Look at it this way - how much would a rich heir pay to go from ugly and stupid to beautiful and intelligent? I can't imagine a sum large enough that they wouldn't be willing to trade it away.

[cortesoft]

It isn’t about whether one is more of a ‘privilege’ than the other. It is about the source of the privilege. We are trying to correct privileges given by society, not the ones given by nature.

[inglor_cz]

"We are trying to correct privileges given by society, not the ones given by nature."

We try to correct privileges given by nature all the time, especially helping disabled people.

[dcow]

They are using the now colloquial, perverted, definitions of privilege and equity. Under both these definitions GP’s comment makes sense. Society seems intent on using say whiteness as a genetic marker for privilege which then means those with the marker should be subject to equity correction policies such that the effects of the allegedly conferred privilege are negated. It’s not a straw-man.

[lamontcg]

Yeah, this is another of those "counterintuitive" takes that are so very popular. Expresses what sounds like legitimate concern about discrimination on the basis of genetics and then "flips the script" halfway through it to tearing down the entire idea of worrying about discrimination. Seductively intellectual nonsense.