Check Your Privilege

[Manfred Belheim]

I find that it is often enough, nonetheless. *Gaze*

Well it's the attitude behind the words that's really of importance of course. But if someone is being genuine with you and requesting you look inward in a way that doesn't suggest they want to spit at you or push you in front of trains then I'd argue that it's a request that's more likely to be honoured. But I think this was discussed to death in a fairly recent thread so never mind.

 

[Borachio]

Politely requesting someone use some introspection doesn't sound particularly adversarial to me.

Cor dear me!

I wouldn't like to even try suggesting that someone be more introspective.

Seems like a minefield to me.

Honestly, can you do so, politely, yourself?

I fancy the more politely I tried to phrase it the more likely they'd be to accuse me of being passive aggressive.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

In reality, men do not know what it is like being subjected to cat calling the way women are, and their assumption that they can just find out by imagining it and being unbiased about it is plain wrong. That is precisely their privilege showing.

Even if I accepted that argument, I would still have to ask in what sense that is "privilege". You could say that that is their ignorance showing, or their pig-headedness showing, or their lack of empathy showing, or their self-centredness showing. How is the possession of any of those qualities a privilege? The ability to be ignorant and wrong doesn't count as any sort of privilege in my book. And yes, I know you're ultimately referring to the "privilege" of not having to put up with cat calls, but that seems several steps removed from what the actual problem at hand. If someone's presenting a balls argument then just pointing out that it's balls and why it's balls is a lot more apposite than going on about privilege in an accusatory manner.

In consequence, as a man, you should strive to take women's experiences seriously instead of talking over them with your much less pertinent speculation about what women's experiences might be like.

You forgot to add "or disagree with another man about a point of logic if they pretend that their point of logic is somehow the voice of all womankind in disguise".

 

[Rashiminos]

I know you were trying to make some sort of trodded out point that people who discuss privilege try to pigeonhole people into categories instead of seeing them as individuals, and that is bad because we should treat everyone as individuals etc etc.

The pigeonholing part is on target, the individual treating part not necessarily (That just affects the number of pigeonholes)...

That is in fact not what is going on of course.

Acknowledging privilege is about freeing people from the normative power of categorization that is taking place (consciously and subconsciously) already, because this normative power originates from those with privilege. Checking your privilege is essentially limiting the extent to which you exercise this power. That is of course not a complete solution.

Nominally speaking... Elsewhere it means assigning spoils according to perceived lack of privilege (and molding perceptions to push that end further). If some perspectives need to be taken seriously... some do not.

But I didn't really want to have this conversation, because as I said, it's old and tiresome and not very productive. So instead I just pointed out that your analogy does not even illustrate this characterization.

Of course you don't want it, or the exertion, or the fruit it might produce. Do I take that bye with the privilege conversation? Do you continue with the interpretation of that analogy that suits you?

Not sure what the wide and narrow domain of the analogy are supposed to mean.

http://www.mathwords.com/r/restricted_domain.htm
In a mathematical sense.

An analogy by its very nature needs to be direct, so I discussed it on the merits of how it is presented in the source text. If I first have to abstract some elements of the analogy, it is not really an analogy anymore, because the point of an analogy is to showcase an abstract idea in a concrete instance.

Oh... kay...

An analogy is an abstraction. In its most basic form, it posits a similarity of relationship between two pairs of two items, which in plain form are not exactly the same ->

puppy:dog::kitten:cat
'Hogwarts Students'*: Sorting Hat ritual::most people: classification of privilege

*(with noted exclusions)

The items used in the analogy need not be strictly concrete themselves. You're not wrong in suggesting that including all Hogwarts students would weaken the analogy, but that's not the same thing as showing that no form of the analogy works. The fact that you grokked some of the argument behind my analogy is proof of that (if it didn't work, your understanding would also be further impaired).

Spoiler :

A:B::C: D , map elements of A to C and vice versa

?

Nevermind.

If you are referring to my reply to Flying Pig's reply to Cheezy, I did never claim to speak for Cheezy. I was simply adding my thoughts on the matter as they pertained to that post. I also never made any assumptions about Cheezy as a person and used that to bolster my position.

I was referring to Cheezy.

Oruc did both of these things.

I understand Oruc is getting several kinds of heat for it.

 

[Narz]

I'm in Mexico right now & its a lonely feeling being a foreigner who is incompetent in the local language. Gives you some appreciation for what foreigners go thru (and next time I'm here I'll be sure I'm alot better prepared, I'm shocked how much I forgot in the last 14 years since I've been here).

 

[Leoreth]

I don't believe you don't know what exaggeration is.

I do know, what I don't know is why you would use it to mischaracterize the person you are talking to.

It is awfully transparent and does hurt instead of help the argument you are making.

Because it's better for everybody, the only way we can continue with this mass immigration is if we keep vast swathes of the world in perpetual misery, where they think sharing a dump with 20 people (I'm postman I see where they live) is a step up. I was against going into Libya and traitorfish accused me of racism "I guess brown people don't deserve liberty" he said. Well how they feeling about that liberty now? But hey at least we have that steady supply of immigrants to make you feel good and stoke the dying embers of our society.
You're just kicking it down the generations so at least it doesn't blow up in our faces. But if we stopped meddling and the majority of them stayed in their native lands they would work to improve their homelands. Sure we would have adjust because as they keep telling our economies rely on these hundreds of thousands of immigrants coming in, and if that's the case the system is going to need major changes because that can't and certainly won't continue forever all we're doing is delaying the inevitable.

Better for everyone? Except foreigners I suppose. So not better for everyone. Again, why should I favor your well being over theirs only by virtue of the place you were born?

Also, maybe this is the place to drop the hypothetical and challenge your assertion that your situation is equal to that of a refugee for example. We are talking about people whose situation was so bad they decided it was worth crossing a desert, risking death, physical or sexual assault and forced labor, being separated from their family for a long time (maybe forever). Also, have you considered that they might be nativists themselves and would have preferred to stay in a place where language and culture and not completely alien to them?

I don't want to belabor this point too much, because I am admittedly better off than you and this thread is about checking your privilege after all. But I just as well cannot simply ignore the situation of those who are truly desperate. Let me add that I do not believe that your situation and that of immigrants are necessarily at odds, or that the problems with your situations cannot be addressed at the same time, or that immigration is necessarily even a problem in the long term.

(Discussing foreign intervention is getting really tangential. In fact it would surprise me to see TF write something like this but even then that was his post and not mine.)

How on earth can you deny it? Read that response where you trot out the buzzwords I might as well not have been there. It is what you were doing and I'm not going to tiptoe around just because you're a mod I can draw (or try to draw) whoever the hell I want into this.

Good, you are the only one who is constantly bringing up my moderator status. I would prefer if you'd ignore it until it becomes relevant to the thread. You will notice by the bold colorful letters.

As for the buzzwords, maybe they aren't to me? I'm being quite genuine right now.

Yes, I can get behind all of this.

(Just to clarify, my post was meant only as a continuation/elaboration on your post, not disagreement.)

Well it's the attitude behind the words that's really of importance of course. But if someone is being genuine with you and requesting you look inward in a way that doesn't suggest they want to spit at you or push you in front of trains then I'd argue that it's a request that's more likely to be honoured. But I think this was discussed to death in a fairly recent thread so never mind.

There's no denying that the phrase is often used in an incendiary way, but that is usually the case in conversations that were beyond the point of civil discourse anyway (and deliberate offense is still uncivil even in a polite tone). And even if it isn't, it is part of a controversial topic. I think it is worthwhile to separate the phrase and its purpose from the way it is often used.

 

[Leoreth]

The pigeonholing part is on target, the individual treating part not necessarily (That just affects the number of pigeonholes)...




Nominally speaking... Elsewhere it means assigning spoils according to perceived lack of privilege (and molding perceptions to push that end further). If some perspectives need to be taken seriously... some do not.

Your argument (including the smug lmao smiley, seriously?) really only works when you assume that people are treated equally or independently of social categories before social justice comes along and thematicizes privilege.

That is just not the case. Privilege does not go away by not explicitly mentioning it, although it might become invisible to you if you have it. There's not much logic in suggesting that social justice is creating division when what it is doing is purposefully designed to lessen it.

Social justice maintains that all perspectives need to be taken seriously, but only some of them are by default. Therefore, conscious action is required to give the rest the same weight, and this action can only come from those whose perspectives are already recognized. You either need to look at it in a context-deaf way, or be afraid to lose preference yourself, to come to the conclusion that it means delegitimizing someone's perspective in turn.

Of course you don't want it, or the exertion, or the fruit it might produce. Do I take that bye with the privilege conversation?

I have no interest in repeating a conversation I already had multiple times and that therefore does not interest me any longer. If you want to take that as an admission of defeat there is little I can do, you got to pick your battles.

Do you continue with the interpretation of that analogy that suits you?

http://www.mathwords.com/r/restricted_domain.htm
In a mathematical sense.

Oh... kay...

An analogy is an abstraction. In its most basic form, it posits a similarity of relationship between two pairs of two items, which in plain form are not exactly the same ->

puppy:dog::kitten:cat
'Hogwarts Students'*: Sorting Hat ritual::most people: classification of privilege

*(with noted exclusions)

The items used in the analogy need not be strictly concrete themselves. You're not wrong in suggesting that including all Hogwarts students would weaken the analogy, but that's not the same thing as showing that no form of the analogy works. The fact that you grokked some of the argument behind my analogy is proof of that (if it didn't work, your understanding would also be further impaired).

Spoiler :

A:B::C: D , map elements of A to C and vice versa

I have clearly not grokked it, every bit of understanding that I might have gained came from hard work and dare I say it exertion?

Returning to the analogy you have made, why do you obsess over the fact that Harry is a special case compared to the other students? I don't think that has ever been established. We never witness the conversations with everyone else, and the hat itself does not indicate this was a special protagonist situation.

Not to mention that it is Harry's experience with the sorting hat that informs our understanding of how the sorting hat works, and that the author included this segment specifically to make a point about morality and personal choice.

That I got your point anyway is because it is trite and predictable. The unfortunate implication that people have a level of choice over the attributes that influence their privilege was just the cherry on top that I could not let go unchallenged.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Cor dear me!

I wouldn't like to even try suggesting that someone be more introspective.

Seems like a minefield to me.

Honestly, can you do so, politely, yourself?

I fancy the more politely I tried to phrase it the more likely they'd be to accuse me of being passive aggressive.

Sure. Just state what you believe, why you believe it, that would like it if they gave your beliefs some thought and then add that it's ALSO your belief that they would see at least some truth in what you say if they did so. Not perfect, but infinitely better than just being a dick.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

There's no denying that the phrase is often used in an incendiary way, but that is usually the case in conversations that were beyond the point of civil discourse anyway (and deliberate offense is still uncivil even in a polite tone). And even if it isn't, it is part of a controversial topic. I think it is worthwhile to separate the phrase and its purpose from the way it is often used.

But isn't "check your privilege" generally used right at the beginning of a conversation? Or as the first reply to some "privileged" person trying to enter it? Seems like a guaranteed way to get things off on the wrong foot.

 

[Leoreth]

Conversation starter? Not in my experience, unless you count some teenagers on tumblr, which is not what I would set as my standard.

Reply? Maybe. I personally don't see a reply of the pattern "Check your privilege. [Reason why previous statement was informed by privilege, followed by a correction from a different perspective]" as incendiary. Could you skip the first part? Probably, but it communicates clearly what that person found objectionable, and clarity is good for discussion. Everything else comes down to wording, but that applies to all conversation.

Also, I think it's understandable if you are in a position of where your experience goes against the popular perception of how things are, and you are just tired of constantly explaining yourself and correct people in detail, and cannot muster more than a short phrase. I think it is mostly the responsibility of the privileged person to educate themselves, and the phrase is a useful shorthand for indicating that this is a situation where that is necessary.

 

[Rashiminos]

Your argument (including the smug lmao smiley, seriously?) really only works when you assume that people are treated equally or independently of social categories before social justice comes along and thematicizes privilege.

Would you prefer I get angry (like..) over what you claim to be facts? I didn't make the assumption that people are treated equally (too easy to demonstrate otherwise), or the assumption of independence of categories (Christianity/"heathens").

That is just not the case. Privilege does not go away by not explicitly mentioning it, although it might become invisible to you if you have it. There's not much logic in suggesting that social justice is creating division when what it is doing is purposefully designed to lessen it.

The design appears to be malformed then... We seem to be 'finding' new genders all the time.

Social justice maintains that all perspectives need to be taken seriously, but only some of them are by default.

It doesn't (safe space and exclusions), nor would it. If all are taken seriously, then none are (there would no longer be a meaningful distinction in taking a perspective seriously as opposed to humoring a perspective).

Therefore, conscious action is required to give the rest the same weight, and this action can only come from those whose perspectives are already recognized.

One course of action is to simply do something else. You know this, so let's move on to the second: force those whose perspectives are already recognized to move the weights... Cue complaints of coercion, or Qui custodiet ipsos custodes. Perhaps a third...

You either need to look at it in a context-deaf way, or be afraid to lose preference yourself, to come to the conclusion that it means delegitimizing someone's perspective in turn.

Context doesn't bother me in the way you're thinking it might. We've been having this discussion about domains...

I have no interest in repeating a conversation I already had multiple times and that therefore does not interest me any longer. If you want to take that as an admission of defeat there is little I can do, you got to pick your battles.

and this action can only come from those whose perspectives are already recognized.

Not as easy as it sounds, is it?

I have clearly not grokked it, every bit of understanding that I might have gained came from hard work and dare I say it exertion?

Not fully.

Returning to the analogy you have made, why do you obsess over the fact that Harry is a special case compared to the other students? I don't think that has ever been established. We never witness the conversations with everyone else, and the hat itself does not indicate this was a special protagonist situation.

If the students could be given a description of each of the 4 houses and then were allowed to pick one for themselves, of what use is that hat? A purely ceremonial use would seem to jibe with the notion of the students knowing that they can just pick, but you make a point of Harry actively (as opposed to passivity) deciding his own house, and this is more sensible if the rest of the students delegate the choice to some thing, which is effectively similar to not choosing at all.

Not to mention that it is Harry's experience with the sorting hat that informs our understanding of how the sorting hat works, and that the author included this segment specifically to make a point about morality and personal choice.

Yes...

That I got your point anyway is because it is trite and predictable. The unfortunate implication that people have a level of choice over the attributes that influence their privilege was just the cherry on top that I could not let go unchallenged.

Challenge away (although I should really be saying towards).

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I think it is mostly the responsibility of the privileged person to educate themselves, and the phrase is a useful shorthand for indicating that this is a situation where that is necessary.

I can't think of anything nice to respond to that with.

"Educate yourself" is even worse than "check your privilege". Glib smugness masquerading as intellectual superiority. A complete inability or unwillingness to defend one's own argument is almost worse than saying nothing at all. Particularly coming, as it usually does, from those professing to be in the minority, "fighting against" the wicked majority. It's hard to imagine a more apathetic, ineffectual and even counter-productive way of "striving" for change.

 

[Rashiminos]

I can't think of anything nice to respond to that with.

You could just say that you will endeavor to educate yourself, and move on.

In the back of mind an "educate yourself" comment with an appropriate tone evokes the imagery of a warm cup of tea with the instructions "You may drink this if you wish."

 

[Leoreth]

Sorry if I don't reply to everything but this is getting way to quote-wally for my liking.

The design appears to be malformed then... We seem to be 'finding' new genders all the time.

What would be the problem with that?

In fact, I would consider this phenomenon testament to the success of the social justice movement.

It doesn't (safe space and exclusions), nor would it.

The examples you mention are tools, not ends.

If all are taken seriously, then none are (there would no longer be a meaningful distinction in taking a perspective seriously as opposed to humoring a perspective).

That really does not follow.

One course of action is to simply do something else. You know this, so let's move on to the second: force those whose perspectives are already recognized to move the weights... Cue complaints of coercion, or Qui custodiet ipsos custodes. Perhaps a third...

Coercion doesn't enter into it. Asking someone to check their privilege is just that, asking them.

If the students could be given a description of each of the 4 houses and then were allowed to pick one for themselves, of what use is that hat? A purely ceremonial use would seem to jibe with the notion of the students knowing that they can just pick, but you make a point of Harry actively (as opposed to passivity) deciding his own house, and this is more sensible if the rest of the students delegate the choice to some thing, which is effectively similar to not choosing at all.

We're treading less certain grounds here, because there is little canon material.

But considering that we are talking about 11 year olds, it is safe to assume that many of them are not explicitly aware of their outlook on the world, like Harry is (even though that outlook is rather naive and simplistic at that point). So the purpose of the hat is help figuring out what choice a student would have made were they more consciously aware of their outlook. Not assigning them where the hat itself thought they would fit best.

 

[Leoreth]

I can't think of anything nice to respond to that with.

"Educate yourself" is even worse than "check your privilege". Glib smugness masquerading as intellectual superiority. A complete inability or unwillingness to defend one's own argument is almost worse than saying nothing at all. Particularly coming, as it usually does, from those professing to be in the minority, "fighting against" the wicked majority. It's hard to imagine a more apathetic, ineffectual and even counter-productive way of "striving" for change.

I'm kind of disappointed by this response, I thought we were talking in good faith here.

Don't conflate victims of oppression with social justice activists, even though the former might become the latter for obvious reasons.

The example you are talking about was not in the context of a discussion forum like this, or a political debate or whatever. That would be different, because everyone participating in such a setting exposes themselves to other points of view willingly and accepts the obligation to explain and defend their own.

But if you are in a minority that is subjected to social norms that do not respect your experience, you don't have that (sorry I tried to avoid it) privilege. People give you that crap in your day to day life. Why should they be required to always be calm and patiently explain themselves, when it's not them who are uninformed? Why are they expected to "struggle for change" every instant of their lives? That is just such a ridiculous expectation that I'm astounded every time I hear it, and I hear it often.

Especially because this deliberately creates a setting you just cannot win. Either you are an annoying single-issue wonk SJW who cannot shut up about their pet topic or you are not trying hard and enough and are therefore lazy and not genuinely in it for the cause, but only for attention or personal moral superiority. No thanks to that kind of thinking.

Why is it bad that someone asks you to educate yourself? Finding out where we lack knowledge is how we gain it in the first place. Life is not always about being smug or intellectually superior, or "winning" a conversation, you know.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I'm kind of disappointed by this response, I thought we were talking in good faith here.

Don't conflate victims of oppression with social justice activists, even though the former might become the latter for obvious reasons.

The example you are talking about was not in the context of a discussion forum like this, or a political debate or whatever. That would be different, because everyone participating in such a setting exposes themselves to other points of view willingly and accepts the obligation to explain and defend their own.

But if you are in a minority that is subjected to social norms that do not respect your experience, you don't have that (sorry I tried to avoid it) privilege. People give you that crap in your day to day life. Why should they be required to always be calm and patiently explain themselves, when it's not them who are uninformed? Why are they expected to "struggle for change" every instant of their lives? That is just such a ridiculous expectation that I'm astounded every time I hear it, and I hear it often.

Especially because this deliberately creates a setting you just cannot win. Either you are an annoying single-issue wonk SJW who cannot shut up about their pet topic or you are not trying hard and enough and are therefore lazy and not genuinely in it for the cause, but only for attention or personal moral superiority. No thanks to that kind of thinking.

Why is it bad that someone asks you to educate yourself? Finding out where we lack knowledge is how we gain it in the first place. Life is not always about being smug or intellectually superior, or "winning" a conversation, you know.

Well I don't think what I said was particularly in BAD faith. Yes it was blunt, but isn't such bluntness essentially the tactic you're defending anyway? I didn't attack you personally, I just said what I think about that attitude and why I think that. And I don't think anything I said was blatantly misrepresenting anything you said either (it's not like, you know, I accused you of trying to silence the voice of all women everywhere because you disagreed with me for example). For the record, when I said "glib smugness" this was about the phrase "educate yourself", not about your post (even though your post did include that phrase). I see how you might take that personally, but please see it as a general comment on that sort of attitude you are describing or defending, rather than about you.

You say the example I was talking about was not in the context of a forum like this. I'm not aware that any context was specified so maybe we're talking about different things. I only ever come across "check your privilege" and "educate yourself" online, pretty much in contexts like this forum, so that's essentially the context I had in mind.

I'm not of the opinion that anyone should struggle for change and I'm certainly not putting that onus on them. I was merely commenting on the fact that "educate yourself" usually seems to come from the people who portray themselves as the ones fighting for change, or see themselves as advocates for it. The irony of such people being so shrill and demanding on the one hand, but then so apathetic when it comes to actually explaining or defending their ideas on the other, is what I am commenting on.

And what's bad about being told to "educate yourself" is again the context in which it is said, and the topics which it is usually said about. It's rarely if ever used in the context where someone is ignorant of something and genuinely wants to learn more about it, it's used in the context where someone holds a completely different opinion to you and DISAGREES with you. So in this case it's not about raising someone from a position of ignorance to a position of enlightenment, it's about convincing them that you are right and they are wrong. Telling someone else "hey, drop your own opinion and convince yourself of mine. I'M not going to do it for you" is just asinine isn't it? And if you really care that little about changing opinion then just shut up about it entirely and do the world a favour (again, not YOU specifically, but people using that approach).

 

[Rashiminos]

What would be the problem with that?

Each new pigeonhole requires its own spoils (privileges/rights/justice) as well as the overhead of its increasingly complex designation (which draws upon energy from the spoils.) Furthermore, the people associated with each pigeonhole have increasingly more recognized axes along which to bicker over the distribution of said spoils. Farm Boy brought up burning prairies, which suggests rendering spoils unusable (in the short term) if they're currently possessed by the privileged. Assuming a finite availability of spoils, destroying them outright provokes conflict. The privileged need only use guile to tip these resentments in the increasingly many directions they can go.

In fact, I would consider this phenomenon testament to the success of the social justice movement.

Well you can enjoy the success in the above, plus the pull of the new ones able to sufficiently accrete the melted byproducts by directing their flow.

(I'd doubt that enjoyment, given your aversion to quote-wallyness).

The examples you mention are tools, not ends.

Do you see the use of these tools being discontinued?

That really does not follow.

Insert the perspective of a anthropocidal android. Take that perspective seriously.

Coercion doesn't enter into it. Asking someone to check their privilege is just that, asking them.

Review: "Do something else"

We're treading less certain grounds here, because there is little canon material.

But considering that we are talking about 11 year olds, it is safe to assume that many of them are not explicitly aware of their outlook on the world, like Harry is (even though that outlook is rather naive and simplistic at that point). So the purpose of the hat is help figuring out what choice a student would have made were they more consciously aware of their outlook. Not assigning them where the hat itself thought they would fit best.

It's okay to assume that many of the students are unaware. That can make Harry's experience misleading (he is more aware, thus more able to act). You go on to read a benevolent interpretation into the hat ritual. Chamber of Secrets makes mention of the qualities Salazar Slytherin valued in students (purebreeds, among other things), so an algorithmic interpretation of the sorting is also possible (ie the teachers and founders of the houses have preconceptions on where students belong, with Harry's choice overriding said algorithm).

 

[Flying Pig]

Why is it bad that someone asks you to educate yourself? Finding out where we lack knowledge is how we gain it in the first place. Life is not always about being smug or intellectually superior, or "winning" a conversation, you know.

As a matter of tact, it's usually much better to say something along the lines of 'what you're saying isn't in line with the facts on xyz - these are the actual facts', or alternatively 'here's somewhere you can find out more': on the internet, there's really not much excuse for not posting a link to one of the immense number of websites telling you about just about anything. 'You need to educate yourself' is, on its own, confrontational and not going to lead to anything getting better. See FB's post on the importance of how things are said versus what is said. It's particularly important when people might not be familiar with a phrase: you might know that 'check your privilege' or 'educate yourself' are normally used without trying to be adversarial, but most people don't.

 

[Ryika]

Why is it bad that someone asks you to educate yourself? Finding out where we lack knowledge is how we gain it in the first place.

You should go and educate yourself about why that's bad instead of asking such a stupid question.

Spoiler :

^
|
That's why.

It's not an argument, it's just another way of claiming that a person is correct and that the person he or she is talking to is not qualified to make a counter-argument (or that the counter-argument brought forward is invalid without having to give a reason for that), while he or she is not willing to help him understand why he or she thinks he's wrong. If the person thinks that the person he or she is arguing with is indeed lacking information why not help him understand what he's missing or at least give him sources that he can use to, in fact, educate himself?

"Educate yourself." is a useless sentence that is meant to assert that a person has won the argument, nothing more than that. It's nonconstructive and spoils the conversation.

 

[Kyriakos]

Privileges are said to apply to how others interact with the person in question based on lifestyle choices or physical appearances. A random guy resting on the street could be arrested for vagrancy or not, and sometimes his appearance plays a role in that decision. It's not always about what each respective person possesses...

Sure, but if we focus on those having to live on the street (not just rest there?), no one has actual privilege if they do that. So while some bad cop might attack one vagabond due to skin color/foreign traits, and not another, the white vagabond is still in an utterly bleak state as well.

Let's not make this a run to the bottom. Very very VERY few people have any privilege to begin with, and it is not realistic to think that by now if you are a white male you are more privileged due to that from being a white female, or many other 'groups'. Afterall, no two people are equal in the first place.

Not can we ever be equal in such a practical/overarching manner either. Hell, not even the same person is 'equal' to a hypothetical situation where he/she would act really differently.