A major fixture of leftist messaging is that the world is full to the brim with discrimination; a few traits - being male, white, heterosexual, cisgender, etc - carry privilege or institutional power, and those without these traits are "systemically" oppressed.
While I've always thought leftists exaggerate this, I find it mostly pointless to argue about that because a proper understanding of the correlated trait fallacy shows it's irrelevant to most things. For example, programs aimed at helping disadvantaged groups. We all agree that helping the less fortunate is more morally valuable than helping the more fortunate. So, the best thing to do is to help the people who are least fortunate, not the people who have the most traits correlated with misfortune. Surely it's better to help a homeless white person than a black millionaire.
Caveat: if you believe those traits are not only correlated with misfortunate but likely to cause more misfortune in the future, then you can consider those traits themselves to make a person less fortunate. But your plan should still be to help the least fortunate overall, so as long as you admit that some things (like being homeless) outweigh any of those traits, you should still screen for misfortune, not for oppressed traits.
Another point I want to make is that the term "privilege" is a destructive one. All of us are oppressed by the state, even cishet white men. A slave treated better than another slave is not "privileged". Except for those responsible for the state's violence, we all belong on the same side, and calling each other privileged is victim blaming.
Finally I want to drive home that while cishet white men might be more likely to be fortunate than others, not only are there individual exceptions, but there are large-scale examples of bigotry against these traits which leftists need to stop ignoring. My intention is not to claim that white men are more oppresssed than nonwhite people and non-men; again I have little interesting in arguing about who has it worse, but to shut leftists the fuck up about it "not existing".
You have to be living under a rock to not see some really vicious examples of anti-white racism online. Incase you have been living under a rock, check out the college professor who in his own words wanted white genocide for Christmas, and Coca Cola training employees to "be less white".
When I point out some of these, a common retort I receive is that this stuff isn't oppression because it doesn't violate rights... from leftists who have suddenly taken up a very strict libertarian definitions of rights which they would never use in any other context because it would also exclude most of the racism against nonwhite people. If anything that doesn't violate freedom of association is not oppression, then racial slurs, misgendering, and conservative institutions refusing to serve LGBT customers are all not oppression.
Another common retort is that these things are oppression when done to marginalized groups because they fuel the systemic oppression that goes beyond these things, but similar actions against privileged people don't because there's no systemic oppression of those people. This is just a refusal to admit that exceptions exist.
If you don't live under a rock, you've probably also seen things like this feminist who hates men so much that it's never okay for other women to sleep with men. But why bother with game like that, when there are several examples of systemic violence that specifically target men?
Conscription. Men in America are required to register for the "Selective Service System" - "service" of course meaning slavery. If you don't already know, I encourage you to read about the punishment for refusing on that article.
Asymmetric violence rules. A man physically striking a woman is seen as scandalous almost regardless of the circumstances, but a woman physically striking a man just for saying something she doesn't like is often seen as funny instead of grounds for retaliation. If you tell me you haven't seen this, I think you're just being wilfully ignorant.
Legal system bias: the proportion of American prisoners who are men is well over 90%. I know this doesn't constitute bigotry, but besides the sheer magnitude of the disparity, there's good reason to think this is a real indication of it: the bias pervades our culture. Ordinary people's stereotypes of criminals are always male. The proportion of our fictional villains who are male is what, 90%? (Compare that to the proportion for heroes.) Judges, cops, and the assholes who call them all come from a culture where criminality is seen as masculine, so it would actually be surprising if there were not misandry involved, even before knowing there's any disproportionality.
No doubt someone will claim it's justified because most criminals are men. You have no idea how circular reasoning works if you make that objection. Those stats don't count criminals, but convicts, so they can't be used to prove a lack of bias in the conviction system.
It's infuriating that lots of leftist websites actually spin the incarceration stats as misogyny. They'll say things like "the incarceration rate for women has been rising twice as fast as for men for the last two decades", ignoring that prisoners are still almost all men.
Circumcision. I left this for last because it's tasteless to mention anything else after this. If you know about this and still claim men are 'privileged', shut the fuck up until you're ready to stop being a victim-blaming asshole.