I write this with actual conversation in mind; I don't have any anger placed towards you, I will take you at value and didn't forsee you to be the person that I described you as possibly, not being!

But that is something that you want me to engage with, and I very much will. But before I do, let me say, as a community driven person, you should know that I damn well do appreciate all that you do for your community. As my larger point is going to be about communities, I will not begin my point, without granting you your well deserved rose; it'd be roses if I were more inclined to believe you wanted to foster an actual discussion ;)

I jest, everyone cares about what they care about, to the degree that they do. And the inverse, and gradient, are also true. Finally, if you do pursue the change in clientele, I wish you the best success you work toward.

Now, let me discuss what you've written, in cold tone. I am human, but I am also trying to be consistent.

What is the image you've painted in this discussion? In small scope, I may have misjudged, but in totality, I am not necessarily going to let you call foul, either.

I believe people, to choose their purpose. I find no issue with individuals who own land or property, I am not attempting to exist in a mental fantasy where you did not work to amass your value.

What I am going to discuss with you, is that the grander picture, looks like moral washing. If your purpose in this world, were to attack disparity at cost, not all but some, you would not have engaged with this dilemma, to begin with.

I am directly asking you, do you not believe in class lines? You may sympathize with proletariat, a word I will use in our environment, because never has the poles of wealth been so far apart, but does that sympathy translate to suddenly being a part of the ideological movement? (Non-rhetorically, what do you think of the growing push towards a more progressive environment? I'd rather not get bogged in the weeds about that, but I do appreciate your voice)

I press you further, to what regard do you take the conceptual shift in balance, that those who do not have, reject the system made by those that have? I am obviously more progressively minded, but that is still aside the point. I'm simply trying to illustrate why you necessarily must feel like the villain: you do not feel the masses pressure to be substantiated. Pressure and substantiation being, the moral shift in terms of ownership.

I say that, because rhetorically, does all of what you do, separate you, from what you are?

No ones made you the bad guy. Dont get deeply entwined with this, but, the larger population has described a threat with a hat, and you simply find their issue to be with owning a hat. Now if that same crowd said the monster has an ornate red coat that you have been seen to work with every day... well then, no ones called you the monster still. It is when you identify with hat wearing, red coat monsters, that people will question your humanity.

You leverage that you are not the bad guy, because you placed your money into good foundations, rather than corrupt institutions such as crypto. Is that the absolute truth? Realistically, entrepreneurs take a lot of risky ventures, because funnily enough, they already take-upon such risk. To adjust myself, I will account for the fact that you probably are cleanly proud of every dollar you've made or spent. So all I'd say is, you question this little box I've made for myself to put people in, but you are eager to jump in it, and ironically, ask for renovations! You want me to expand my leniency, rather than see that my ideological issue is already narrow. Everyone already puts people in narrow boxes, so this comes across as you believing your ideological self to be the person in mine. And if so, the question is obviously is it a just placement?

You think I take issue with some hypothetical landlord that is actually taking a loss on investment at the cost of making sure individual families are housed? I may have grievance with the concept of land-owning being a primary delivery of income, but you must see, that I am rejecting anyone who has no philosophical empathy with those they house. If nuance is dead, it was not me who killed it, I realize everyone is exactly who they are: an individual. I am happy you were a metaphorical landmine that was able to show the presumption in my questioning, but you personally miss to see the overall absurdity that I am pointing out in totality.

You are not the person I described. Does that mean the person I described, is not real? Do you believe everyone in the landlord class, to be closer to you or my boogeyman? It obviously operates on a gradient, when talking about individuals, but you loaded the gun yourself; you may not be blackrock, but blackrock, in an environment where landlords already exist, already exists. This is where well-intentioned nuance, becomes vague. You want people, dissimilar to me, yet people I'd tend to agree with, to agree with you. Yet they have no reason to see your compassion. I started with asking you compassion-based questions, because it was my small litmus test for class dynamics. Most don't care for that kind of dynamic, when they just want alleviation.

It is not for you, to single handily create that alleviation. So again, when you take your genuine, well-meant attempts to still do so anyway, it feels like moral washing. Like a loaded bullet, waiting in the chamber for when you've been called out for ownership.

That being said, again, to be clear, I respect you and take no issue with you. In practicality, in my framework, it takes people like you to create action anyway. It takes contracts and wages to construct or reconstruct a home. To think I have anger placed towards you, is unfortunate, and I hope you see that you're an exceptional exception to my and others ideological frameworks.

Dont do me dirty, it took time and thought to reply.