Look buddy, I didn't make the extraordinary claim you think I made. You clearly got excited when you read one part of the article and it got you worked up.

I'm happy to accept criticism and feedback, but that's not what you're giving me.

To continue this, I would need you to understand basic principles of argumentation, reason, and logic – and it looks like you have a contextual understanding of these concepts as you have encountered them in life sciences courses.

Lol. I'm not looking for your praise or support. It's also obvious that I'm not running away from whatever you're trying to make-stick on the article.

You keep using "straw men" and "ad-hominen" but I don't think you know what these words mean. Everything you've written is ad-hominen and straw-men.

For example, you say I make this extraordinary claim. I don't make the claim you say i make, and what you're doing here is literally a "Straw-man". You set up a straw man of an argument that you can then attack more easily, and you ignore the real argument. Then you keep saying it's "bullshit", "ridiculous", "absurd", "sucks". That's ad-hominen.

Nobody even suggested that checking your privilege is a magical cure to inequality.

How do you know that? What a strange claim to make.

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.

I make a claim that checking privilege increases power, and power is basically about the kinds of possibilities you have in your life. So more power is likely to produce more inequality (because you have better and more possibilities than others).

"Arrogant college writer"? Did you tip the fedora when you wrote that?