> This is just twisted logic to provide a false path to help you conclude that the privileged are actually the oppressed. I'm not sure what you're getting at h

> This is just twisted logic to provide a false path to help you conclude that the privileged are actually the oppressed. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. There are a whole lot of people who make all sorts of claims about who the "privileged" and the "oppressed" might be; some of them arguably with more care than others. By way of example, a certain high-profile figure in our administration seemingly likes to portray eirself as being 'just an average guy' who has been somewhat successful thanks to eir outstanding smarts and saviness in 'making deals', but is now being 'oppressed' by the fake-news-peddling mainstream media. I don't think these claims should be taken seriously, and I regard this notable individual as plausibly being, by and large, quite privileged. But of course it's possible that I am wrong, and that ey's really being oppressed, even though I might regard em as privileged. Is this what you're getting at? More generally, I think words like "privilege" and "oppression" obscure a lot more than what they might seem to reveal; they're the kind of claim that should always come with some sort of explanation or qualification.