Look, I'm going to go slow for you.

(1) You don't like it but you have no argument or reason not to like it. The Latins would say: there's no disputing taste. If you told me you like chocolate ice cream and i kept pressing you "why!?, "why?" – we would eventually get to a point where you just like it because you do.

That brings me to the following point.

(2) "Pseudo-Intellectual fluff". You appear positively antagonistic to whole fields of research and academic study. I don't know why you are antagonistic to these fields, presumably because you haven't studied and examined them before coming to your biased judgement.

(3) Maybe you don't get it, but at that point, you should recognize that this is an opportunity for you to think! I think it's important to include that, and you don't. This is the substance of your criticism. Why is it not important? Riddle me that, bro.

(4) Words are very important, I recommend you learn to notice what they say. I don't write "caused by". I specifically say "correlates with". If checking privilege was supposed to be this radical move to reduce inequality (as many people think it is), then it hasn't done that. There is still a lot of inequality. How do I know this? I read the work of economists. Here's one for ya: http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/fr/

This pompous attitude of yours. What makes you think I don't understand statistics or basic scientific method?

I can respond to what i wrote or I can respond to what you wrote but I can't do both. I didn't write that "addressing issues or acknowledging them worsens the problem". I specifically wrote what i did with careful terms. Go read it bro - you clearly haven't.

Here's the gist for you in case you stumble around a little more: the checking of privilege is about making known and apparent that conditions that have led one to live a relatively better life than others. This produces pleasure.

WHY IS IT RIDICULOUS? You're just saying things without explaining them. Aren't you ashamed?