1. I don't like it because it's garbage writing with a claim that is literally absurd. Yes, literally.

2. I am not against research or academics, I'm actually a science guy who used to write. I am, however, against using logical fallacies to argue a nonissue.

3. You still didn't say what you meant by that or what the purpose of it was: you shrugged it off, which is a major cop out.

Also, that's just the thing: Nobody even suggested that checking your privilege is a magical cure to inequality. This paper attacks a nonexistent or largely unimportant and unpopular group of self-righteous "privilege checkers" and tries to draw a relationship between their practice of privilege checking and an increase in the inequality gap.

And that's the other thing: Saying it "X correlates to Y" but not having any substantial evidence or references of it is essentially saying nothing at all. Yeah, it might. It also might be bullshit, like this paper. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This lacks any of the latter.

As a writer, you should be able to accept criticism or confrontation without resorting to ad hominem and straw men arguments. You also can't make this paper suck any less just by saying "No it was a great paper because I wrote it and it's great and I'm the greatest" in the comments.

I'm an aspiring life scientist, so no, I don't have any political or economic background. I do, however, know how to appreciate a solid argument whether or not I agree with it. I see no solid argument here, just some arrogant college writer who didn't get the praise and support he imagined he would in some bullshit paper he put out.