I'm commenting in the faint hope of changing the dynamic. So far it's shifted towards irritation with me. Frankly, that's progress.
Now. Privilege, at this point, is basically an attempt to reconstruct one's social class from the bottom up through identity politics. The stuff Putin cited is a pretty decent explanation of the general white-black disparity in privilege in America, which is why I analogized it to a decent explanation of some evidence for evolution. But that doesn't make the stuff trip talked about an "excuse for false equivalency" by "mediocre white people". White people in the US have the general privilege of whiteness, but that doesn't make them a privileged monolith; there's a lot of shit affecting privilege besides whiteness, and the poor white rural religious-minority immigrant kid who grows up a minority in his own crime-infested neighborhood (I'm not trying to describe anyone in particular here, just an abstract hypothetical) has pretty low privilege overall. (This is usually where someone speaking the language of privilege gets into 'intersectionality'--and goes off the rails, like as not. But it is useful to note that privilege isn't well-ordered, such that you can clearly say whether any one person has 'more' or 'less' privilege than another.)
trip can think what he likes of the privilege model--I have my own reservations about it--but many of the differences it describes are real. And Putin, who buys into the privilege model, really shouldn't be offhandedly dismissive of trip's own background just to make a point about one particularly visible dimension of the privilege model.
Said enough for you?