> it’s the kind of method religions/cults/political parties use to indoctrinate
This kind of language ("cult" and "indoctrinate") is a conversation-stopper and does nothing to help anyone. If it's so easy to prove the idea is false, could you do that instead of using baseless invectives?
It's trivial to prove that it's false. Have you never heard a white person talk about white privilege?
Ironically, some of the responses saying it's true that privilege invisible to those who have it are demonstrating otherwise. For instance, this [1] response who wrote that they weren't aware of their privilege "until I saw and lived it for myself". If privilege were invisible to those that have it, they wouldn't have been able to see it.
Actually ask around, and the overwhelming majority of people are cognizant that coming from a stable family is a privilege relative to coming from a dysfunctional family. Or coming from a wealthy family is a privilege relative to coming from an impoverished one.
But it is used to silence, just differently. Per OP: Noticing privilege is proof of privilege existing in society. Not noticing privilege is proof of privilege and proof of the observer's oblivious-ness.
If all answers are supposedly proof of your claim, that's just another way to silence dissent by invalidating opposing claims and viewpoints.
This kind of language ("cult" and "indoctrinate") is a conversation-stopper and does nothing to help anyone. If it's so easy to prove the idea is false, could you do that instead of using baseless invectives?