4 ms·
> so you do a background check them, just not the standard, criminal/credit check These things are not at all equivalent. It's a laughable false-equivalency to
by Pfhreak 6y ago
> so you do a background check them, just not the standard, criminal/credit check
These things are not at all equivalent. It's a laughable false-equivalency to suggest that calling a few friends/acquaintances of someone is at all similar to investigating their personal finances, debts, criminal history, employment records, etc.
> You also base a lot of your decision about a hard-to-quantify "gut feel" from this coffee shop chat.
When I have a unit for rent, it goes to the first person interested. This coffee shop meeting isn't an interview.
These folks are going to be living in my home, this is the most egalitarian way for both parties to understand "is this situation tenable for both of us?" It's not an assessment or gate.
How else will they know they want to live with my family?
- SilasX 6y ago>These things are not at all equivalent. That's why I didn't say they were. I was challenging you to explain the moral difference and you haven't yet answered that. Worse, you're not pretending that your coffee shop meeting isn't an interview, and is for their benefit: >How else will they know they want to live with my family? It's fine if you want to argue against the standard background check, but you need to actually articulate what is objectionable about it, and have some awareness of the similarities to the screening that you consider necessary.
- Pfhreak 6y ago> what is objectionable about it Background checks disproportionately impact poor and minority communities because they are more likely to be impacted by systemic poverty.