I'm confused how any portion of the movement benefits from telling people that they can't discuss the merits of leaving a job or dying town for greener pastures.
What part of radical social/economic change do you think is going to be easy?
Radical change on the scale that r/antiwork necessitates people being uncomfortable at some point.
Banning the discussion of 'just quitting your job' only serves the employers out there who've convinced people they have no other options. You aren't stopping some harmful redundancy in the comments by deriding this discussion. You're hamstringing the very possibility of radical change.
Lastly, tossing the word privilege around in this context isn't helping the movement anymore than telling the union organizers they're 'privileged' for calling for unionization at a workplace. After all, if you can risk your job over being a union organizer, it must mean you're coming from a place of privilege, right? /s
Name calling of this nature is just masturbatory bullshit seeking an echo chamber that does nothing to further the movement.
TLDR: 'Radical change' without discomfort is neither going to be radical or a change. If this sub can't handle people telling individuals to do the most readily available actions to further the movement's goal of ending the exploitative nature of work, then how on earth is it ever going to call for a general strike let alone dismantle the hyper-capitalist framework we all live under?
Vote with your feet. Sit on your hands. Look out for each other.