I mean you're not wrong but you missed my point. There's always an angle. That's how everyone succeeds. You find your angle and you exploit it. Everybody has at least one.

You choose here to focus on the fact that some people have more angles available to them than others. You call them privilege and believe them to be unjust. If you do that too much, you'll defeat yourself and destroy your own agency.

Maybe you're right, maybe they are unjust, I do have opinions on that sort of thing, I also think the best places to indulge those opinions are at the ballot box and at my desk writing checks to nonprofits. I mean I do screw this up and focus my time/energy/attention on them at inappropriate times. But I know it is a screw-up when I do it. No one is serving the greater good by wasting time.

I acknowledged your point. I also agree that the individual should focus on what is in their power to exploit. But I think it's also important to recognize and work to fix systemic issues if we value a just system. Both can be true at the same time and I think it's sometimes a mistake of the hustle-porn mentality to focus exclusively on one while ignoring the other.

Says the person who attacked a commenter for being "privileged." I'm just helping defend him against your irrelevant accusations of privilege (even though you know nothing about him) while he's attempting to discuss ways to become successful without being a trust funder. He has given us a very helpful and insightful perspective, and since you cannot add to his useful discussion, you instead interrupt by him being the privilege police, because you think it will get you internet points.

He laid his heart and mind out for our benefit, and you rewarded it by attempting to bully him. Don't tell me I'm being uncivil.

Nobody was "attacked". Saying that having specific options that aren't afforded to everyone is an acknowledgement that neither negates their point or is an attack on a person. It is, as you say, adding to the perspective, based exclusively on what they said; I'm not jumping to conclusions as you allude. Contrast that to your snarky reply. The fact that you thought that comment was an attack demonstrates a lack of the HN guideline to read the strongest possible interpretation and avoid snark. Your approach is not conducive to discourse.

No, you absolutely bullied him. And now instead of apologizing, you're doubling down. He never claimed to be a starving African child. He told us what he had to do to make up for his limitations, and instead of working with that conversation, you chose to denigrate his efforts.

You're right that I'm not adding to his discourse. I'm just trying to hush the people who are attempting to bully him.

Honestly I’m probably more inclined to land on the same side as you regarding this particular case regarding the suggestion or assumption of privilege. That being said, no, you’re being ridiculous. There was no attacking or bullying.

It's hyperbole, sure. But if you were to put it in a productive-unproductive and bullying-kindness matrix, it's in the unproductive/bullying quadrant.