<p><pre><code>    It&#x27;s simply intractable to add up everyone&#x27;s advantages and disadvantages
</code></pre>
Sure.<p><pre><code>    it&#x27;s the wrong path to focus on group attributes&#x2F;trends when you start talking about individuals.
</code></pre>
Absolute nonsense. If a particular school had a 30% graduation rate while every other school in the state averaged 80%, would you say, &quot;Wait a minute! It&#x27;s the wrong path to talk about <i>this school in particular.</i> These are individual kids...&quot;<p>As you say, every individual human being certainly is <i>more</i> than the some of their labels. But when gross inequalities between groups emerge, it&#x27;s lunacy to suggest there are no greater group-wide forces at work on scales greater than the individual.<p><pre><code>    Would you tell Michael Jordan to check his privilege if he told a group of average white male nerds to reflect on theirs?
</code></pre>
Is Michael Jordan a group of people? Unless there&#x27;s a clone army of Michael Jordans out there that I don&#x27;t know about, this theoretical question is bizarre and irrelevant to anything anybody is talking about.<p>I&#x27;m not even sure what you&#x27;re getting at here. He is a part of some privileged groups (rich people, people with one-in-a-million athletic ability, men) and not others.<p><pre><code>    I could clamor for tall rich sportsmen to &quot;send the
    elevator down for me&quot;. That it&#x27;s their responsibility
    and so on.
</code></pre>
Michael Jordan can&#x27;t make you a rich, tall sportsman. That&#x27;s not... physically possible. However, the author of the original article suggested that we help others achieve careers in our industry. Now that certainly does seem possible, doesn&#x27;t it? Hardly even seems controversial, if you ask me.