> I think the proper term here would be feudalism.
But that's not the proper term?
>Feudalism, also known as the feudal system, was the combination of the legal, economic, military, and cultural customs that flourished in Medieval Europe between the 9th and 15th centuries.
Unless you think removing affordable housing would bring back "the combination of the legal, economic, military, and cultural customs that flourished in Medieval Europe between the 9th and 15th centuries", the "proper term" isn't really "feudalism".
Well, if you're going to scold someone for not using the correct term, it would be polite to explain why the term is not correct, without summoning several wikipedia links and just saying "see, it all writes here if you take the time to read it all".
I don't see the issue is with that, especially when the mistake being made is overgeneralizing a specific term. Suppose we were talking about jury trials, and someone said "I believe the correct term for it is common law". That's wrong, because even though many common law systems have jury trials, common law deals with a lot more than just jury trials. It's also very expansive, with a lot of topics to cover, so you can't reasonably give a summary as a comment. In this case I feel it's totally fine to scold them with a quick summary with why they're wrong (ie. "common law refers to a specific type of legal system used in certain countries, not just jury trials"), without having to write an exposition about every feature of common law.
The issue I see is that feudalism, when it comes to land ownership, is very similar to the hypothesized scenario - in my opinion enough to warrant that tongue-in-cheek comment you replied to. You felt the need to point out that feudalism technically is not just that, without any explanation on what that difference is, or why is it meaningful to the discussion at hand. Yet you expect me to read random sources that you yourself didn't read, in order to somehow figure out your point.
I'm sorry for being harsh, but you didn't contribute anything to the discussion, you were just being condescending. If you had been condescending, but brought something meaningful to the discussion, I wouldn't say a word to you. I promise.
But in this case the residents already "own nothing"? The only difference here is that they're renting from a new owner, which decided to raise the rent.
