It’s pointing out situations where the trope/stereotype falls apart. And your response is basically a troll response, so I’ll offer this one reply and then ignore you.
I likely know more about how small credit unions operate than you do, I also likely have more familiarity with regular “mom and pop” type landlords than you do, given that I’ve worked in the Credit Union industry in the past, and have audited many of those loans. Typically, CU board of directors don’t get paid shit compared to banks, the CEOs typically don’t earn many multiples more than the rank and file employees (unlike banks), their profits generally go back to the membership, though those “profits” are not the target of most of those orgs, as the people they’d be profiting off of are their bosses (in that their Boards are elected from the membership – so you piss off members with fees, they just go on the board and direct you to remove / reduce those fees). So for example, in Canada, CU members generally enjoy no-ding ATM withdrawls from all Credit Union owned machines – there’s a whole campaign about ‘ding free’ banking with CUs. The board of most CUs are often just working class people, with a few specific ‘professional’ types required by regulators to ensure things like accounting oversight.
People often default to thinking banks are the only option for mortgages. They’re not. Credit Unions provide mortgages to large segments of the population, and they’re cooperative organisations in structure – which is in pretty good alignment with progressive ideals.
It’s not a bad faith argument to point out stereotyping in these sorts of threads. Just like it isn’t bad faith to point out when a racist post is made about a visible minority.
It’s pointing out situations where the trope/stereotype falls apart.
No, it’s misdirection – where the landlord got their money from doesn’t make a whit of difference.
It’s nearly as ridiculous as asking “well if the slave owner got their loan from a credit union, then it’s all those evil working class credit union members profiting?” It’s a non-sequitur. You can go off about how much you know about credit unions all you want, it’s got fuck-all to do with landlords.
Rent-seeking behaviour doesn’t magically turn good if you got your initial capital from some “good” source
People who believe in idealizes theory don’t care about facts or a complex reality.
They just think that stuff is fake or lies and will be swept away but the glory of the revolution when all the evil awful people own property get it stolen from them and it’s handed out to the TRULY DESERVING people, like themselves. Who are so pure and wonderful and good… they’d never seek ownership or profit.
It’s pointing out situations where the trope/stereotype falls apart. And your response is basically a troll response, so I’ll offer this one reply and then ignore you.
I likely know more about how small credit unions operate than you do, I also likely have more familiarity with regular “mom and pop” type landlords than you do, given that I’ve worked in the Credit Union industry in the past, and have audited many of those loans. Typically, CU board of directors don’t get paid shit compared to banks, the CEOs typically don’t earn many multiples more than the rank and file employees (unlike banks), their profits generally go back to the membership, though those “profits” are not the target of most of those orgs, as the people they’d be profiting off of are their bosses (in that their Boards are elected from the membership – so you piss off members with fees, they just go on the board and direct you to remove / reduce those fees). So for example, in Canada, CU members generally enjoy no-ding ATM withdrawls from all Credit Union owned machines – there’s a whole campaign about ‘ding free’ banking with CUs. The board of most CUs are often just working class people, with a few specific ‘professional’ types required by regulators to ensure things like accounting oversight.
People often default to thinking banks are the only option for mortgages. They’re not. Credit Unions provide mortgages to large segments of the population, and they’re cooperative organisations in structure – which is in pretty good alignment with progressive ideals.
It’s not a bad faith argument to point out stereotyping in these sorts of threads. Just like it isn’t bad faith to point out when a racist post is made about a visible minority.
No, it’s misdirection – where the landlord got their money from doesn’t make a whit of difference.
It’s nearly as ridiculous as asking “well if the slave owner got their loan from a credit union, then it’s all those evil working class credit union members profiting?” It’s a non-sequitur. You can go off about how much you know about credit unions all you want, it’s got fuck-all to do with landlords.
Rent-seeking behaviour doesn’t magically turn good if you got your initial capital from some “good” source
People who believe in idealizes theory don’t care about facts or a complex reality.
They just think that stuff is fake or lies and will be swept away but the glory of the revolution when all the evil awful people own property get it stolen from them and it’s handed out to the TRULY DESERVING people, like themselves. Who are so pure and wonderful and good… they’d never seek ownership or profit.