My point is that I don't think teaching people that they're advantaged, especially when they don't feel it as most white people don't, is the best way to teach them this. It's teaching the wrong side of the coin.

If one group of people is advantaged, you can infer that another group of people is disadvantaged (I know that's simplistic but it works for this example).

If you want to help the advantaged people understand the disadvantaged people's plight, you can focus on the perks of the advantaged, or the plight of the disadvantaged.

I think, and my writing has shown me numerous times, that the more effective way is to point out the people that need help, rather than attack the people who were born into advantage with no say in the matter. And yes, you can say that there's no need for it to be an attack, but it very often comes off that way. I thnk that's why white people sometimes get defensive. I've seen how accusatory it gets numerous times. Some people also seem to assume that it guarantees a life of ease and privilege which is obviously nonsense.

The other piece of that is, what are they supposed to do about it? If you're especially good looking for example, you have an enormous advantage over anybody who isn't. Far bigger than if you're black vs white frankly. Same if you're intelligent or socially gifted or grew up in a stable, loving home. If somebody points this "privilege" out to you, what are you supposed to do about it? How does this placing you in opposition to all the ugly or dumb or shy or broken-homed people create change?

Wouldn't it be better to focus on showing you all the ways that ugly people struggle than all the ways you're lucky? Especially because being priviliged in a particular way absolutely doesn't guarantee that your life is better. I know these seem like very similar things, but I think the difference is really significant. As I said, it's a question of which side of the coin you focus on.