Thanks for elaborating. I generally agree with the point of view you wrote in this comment, with few caveats:
> From their perspective, you're being a bit of an asshole, but you weren't even trying to be an asshole. You just couldn't imagine that people like them existed, probably because you, your friends, your family, your neighbours don't fit that description.
While I probably can't consciously put the right amount of weight to them and their situation - due to e.g. availability heuristic, like you described - I am at least theoretically aware of their existence and can emphasize in a limited way. My comments in this subthread weren't about denying their existence or their problems; they were against countering an idea with an example of people who can't apply it. I assume it's implicitly understood that tmpanon1234act's comment won't be applicable to everyone - but it will be for many, including most of the audience here.
> The concept of privilege exists, not to make you feel guilty about this, but to make you aware of your unconcious biases.
That's what it says on the box. It's not how it is used in on-line discussion. "Privilege" is most often brought up as a way to make people feel guilty and derail the discussion. I admit that I've become allergic to this word and can overreact even to legitimate usage of it, but that's due to the guilt-tripping it's most often used to induce.
> And to stop you accidentally being a asshole by e.g. deciding that everyone should use their real names online, which solves your spam problem, and causes issues for people with abusive exes, or secret lives they need to hide from their family or community. It's about acknowledging that people have different experiences in life for all sorts of reasons and you can't assume what is "normal" for you is all there is.
I agree this is a worthy goal (and something I try to be mindful of all the time - I actually thank HN for exposing me to so many various point of views that I can tell I've become much more conscious person because of it). But again, pointing out "privilege" is probably not the best way to achieve it now - that particular word has been overused for a different purpose.
To the points about usability:
> You know how the person who built a tool simply doesn't get why it's hard for other users, who have no context or history with it, to use the tool. It's a basic flaw in human psychology.
> Teaching is similar, the person who knows everything about X struggles to explain X to people who know nothing about X, even though in theory they should be the best person possible. The shared context is just not present.
Yeah, I learned to know it as the concept of "degrees of separation" and I think recognizing this is a crucial skill for teachers and tool builders. It's very much learnable - you recursively go down the ladder of abstraction until you reach your audience, and then build up from there. A lot of people don't do (or don't even care about) this, but those that do become again the best person for X - experts in X become the best teachers of X, and programmers become the best people to build digital tools for users.
> I'm not sure why people get so upset by having their worldview disrupted in this way, but it seems to be a thing.
I agree. Known psychological phenomenon that one has to be wary of all the time :). I know I sometimes get angry when I'm proven wrong, but I think I've learned to deal with it - the reward of being closer to the truth and understanding is worth it.