That&#x27;s weird, because I said nothing of the sort. In fact my GP comment pretty strongly implies my belief that some privilege does exist.<p>My argument is fairly constrained in scope and can logically be broken down like this: privilege can be used to describe a group but not applied to an individual. This should be axiomatic; incorrectly applying group properties to an individual is known as an ecological or division fallacy. Whenever you hear (or invoke) an admonition to &quot;check your privilige&quot;, consider whether this error is being made.<p>The thing is, people know this. I know they know this because any example of &quot;anti-privilige&quot; is summarily dismissed as a unique case representing the elastic nature of privilige.<p>The other thing that makes privilige hard to discuss is that when you question assumptions or ask for specifics, you are instantly dismissed as an enemy of the cause. Your reply here is a great example. Above you mention &quot;a million other things&quot; that have been &quot;insanely thoroughly documented&quot;, I said I&#x27;d like to see them to look at them critically, and that trigged Red Alert. At that point you lumped me in with climate change deniers and considered me irrational, because asking questions makes me the Enemy. This is a pattern that occurs frequently; the CoC discussion on php-internals took a similar path. It&#x27;s such a bizarre thing to me, because as engineers we all follow a rubric that&#x27;s roughly: 1. identify and describe the problem 2. consider solutions 3. implement the best solution. But in the social justice arena, trying to participate in #1 gets you cast out as oblivious, ignorant, irrational, or worse -- unless you belong to a certain in-group.<p>In the quest for inclusion, it seems like there&#x27;s a lot of exclusion happening.