I was looking at an NPR article[1] when the wording just
started to pop out at me. Below are some examples of what
I found there.

   "A gentrifier is a middle-class person who moves into a
   disinvested context at a time when other people are doing
   the same."

I'm not sure how a person moves into a "context." At least,
when I've moved in the past, I've never attempted to
abstract my new home into an idea or concept that I could
work on studying. Perhaps I am a bad person for failing to
do that... the article seemed to imply as much.

   "On 'gentrifier guilt' ... That guilt is felt because
   there is a perception that someone is benefiting from an
   unjust gap."  

Oh no, I didn't realize that I was supposed to feel guilty
when I moved, if the context was incorrect. Heck, it appears
that I'm supposed to feel guilty if there is even a hint of
a *perception* of injustice. The "unjust gap" here, I think,
happens when I move into a place where I can afford more
than the people that already live there, perhaps. Maybe I
should go ahead and feel guilty, just in case.

   "The first question I ask in regards to gentrifier guilt
   is: What is the just context for a middle-class housing
   consumer? Is it the suburb? Is it the devalued
   neighborhood? Is it the bottom of a middle-class enclave
   in the city that has never had the devaluing? Is that the
   just context?"

Inventing forms of justice doesn't mean that you're fighting
for actual justice. Just like if someone else feels pain it
doesn't mean that I'm responsible and should feel guilt.
Empathy and sympathy I'm fine with, but not guilt.

And again with the context. Now there's a "just context." It
isn't quite enough that I become independently aware of the
context of my new home, now I have to ensure that the
context is just. If it's not, I'm not for justice, I'm
against it. I don't want to be anti-justice.

   "There are many people of all backgrounds in the United
   States who are struggling with their housing choice and
   trying to figure out what the ethical footprint of their
   housing choice will be."

I would argue with the use of the word "many" here. You'd be
hard pressed to find three people on the street that even
understood what you meant if you mentioned the "ethical
footprint of their housing choice."

So, now that I feel a new sense of previously unknown guilt,
what is the ethical footprint of my housing choice? If I'm
too successful, too comfortable, too anything-different, is
my choice unethical? Where is the foundation of those ethics
so I can go worship there?

   "I think people need to own where they live; don't say
   you can't live somewhere else if you're middle-class. You
   could live in that suburb that isn't gentrifying. You
   could live at the bottom end of that middle-class
   community in the city that isn't gentrifying."

Wait, am I supposed to feel an extra measure of guilt here,
or what? Clearly, I'm not welcome in certain neighborhoods,
I get that. Instead of redlining, now we're drawing some
other kind of line- we'll call it greenlining since the
middle-class are clearly swimming in greenbacks. I've been
greenlined out of neighborhoods where I might make a little
too much money.

But, I've also been greenlined out of the possibility of
buying a home outright, or saving some money each month on
my mortgage so I can spend that money on other things. No,
it would be better for society if I "stayed with my own
kind," and spent an ethically appropriate percentage of my 
income on housing each month, rather than purusing a lower-
cost option.

Sarcasm aside, I don't really want to hurt people or damage
neighborhoods so I can make or save a buck. But, I also
don't want to be told that I can't pursue lower-cost housing
options because it might cause a stir for people who are
festering nearby. I don't mean "festering" in a derogatory
way (someone could, I'm sure, view the word like that,) nor
do I necessarily blame people for their situations; but
really, if the values are low, it's for a reason. And if
people want to come in and buy, and try to make an area
better, where is the value in stopping that?

To be fair, and feel less guilt, I'll include the NPR
author's conclusion:

   "We need to put pressure on our city governments as a
   community to not put profit and investment as the number
   one priority. It can be balanced with other priorities of
   community."

Ok, forget the guilt, this is nonsense. This article seems
to be claiming that local governments are more worried about
money than they are about community quality. Now, that's not
very trusting. Of course, I'm no social scientist. I guess
I'll leave the thinking to them, and I'll handle the guilt
part.

[1] https://www.npr.org/2018/01/28/581280992/there-isn-t-a-just-housing-choice-how-we-ve-enabled-the-pains-of-gentrification