Peterson isn't having a discussion about feelings.
When he puts forth that there are multiple advantages and disadvantages in life, he's not referencing just how one feels. Good health versus bad health is not a feeling. Being born blind is a disadvantage that exists on a real physical level. Attractiveness is an advantage in the world that exists on a real physical level. Intelligence predicts academic success and job capability. These are real world advantages.
I would add that most privileges come with their own drawbacks as well. Being attractive has been found to be an advantage across cultures. However, it also garners more attention than the individual may be comfortable with. Being in the nation's ethnic majority offers some advantages, but it also has trade-off. You can end up a bit more generic. There is advantages to being a minority. You have scarcity value. Being tall as a man has advantages, but it also can be a disadvantage as you do not fit the majority size ratio and will find physically awkward situations. Meanwhile, being tall as a woman can have drawbacks, but it is important in the modeling world.
Things get tricky and messy and tangled up once you're honest about the many things that impact the individual's life.
But this is where I feel the discussion is about feelings and I will lay it out an an analogy.
I am building a public building. I, as am able-bodied person, am able to walk up and down steps as well as the vast majority of people I know. In fact, much of the population would not have trouble walking up and down steps.
I am building this public building from my personal view that the majority of people will not have an issue with this, which is true.
Now I argue, that this is a view of privilege because I do not have the disadvantage of being handicapped so I decide to make an elevator
Jordan Peterson seems to agree on that point that I have an advantage and this handicapped individual has a disadvantage.
But Jordan Peterson takes it a step further to say just because they are handicapped does not mean your solution will resolve the step issue.
This is also true, my solution of an elevator may not solve the problem for every type of individual, in addition some individuals labeled as handicap may not have an issue taking the stairs at all.
Jordan Peters seems to argue or imply, that because the handicap or disadvantage is so individualized, that any attempt to resolve the issue will result in individuals who will not benefit from the elevator in my analogy.
This is true.
So what the solution?
The idea solution would be to make a mechanism on a per-person basis to address each and every single individual handicap.
However this is not a realistic means of thinking and in my opinion it is justification for the attempt to not even try.
Thus when discussing the disadvantage, we view how it helps the most people in the most ways when developing policy in this analogy. The policy being a mechanism for handicapped individuals.
Now, back to the privilege aspect of it. In this analogy I, as an able bodied person, am the culturally majority. I am building the building and I have the power to set the rules thus I set them on my limited viewpoint.
My viewpoint consists of viewing others who are able bodied as the norm and thus their able-bodied "ness" is a secondary or tertiary thought ahead of other qualities they my have. Meanwhile I view handicap individuals as a monolithic group where an elevator should resolve all of this group's problems while ignoring every individual can be privileged or disadvantaged in different ways.
This is a fallacy which Jordan Peterson correctly identifies.
But the solution isn't to:
1) Build an individual mechanism for every individual.
2) Realize building an individual mechanism for everyone is impossible and not try at all.
3) Talk about how I have problems of my own and how poor I am.
I argue the third option to address privilege is just basic humanity.
To be considerate and empathetic.
Trying your best to understand your cultural perspective if through a specific lens.
Doing what you can, when you can to address the disparity
Realizing that you will never have the solution resolved 100% and someone will always complain.
Realizing that these factors are not what defines the individual, but it is still a factor that can have an impact on them and on groups.
Right now we are debating the existence of this idea of privilege, but EvilLore asked the most important question. When you do identify this privilege what is the action you take?
It's not for use to be shamed, nor should it be something to be ashamed of, especially to the point of wholesale discrediting its existence.
Its something that individuals take for granted and determine that because I don't think its a problem, its not a problem.
But it is and should be in my opinion an acknowledgement of an issue you as an individual may not face, but another individual might be challenged regularly on and having the understanding and empathy that should be shared through humanity.