Earning a few extra percent trading in super efficient markets with millions of people exploiting any infinitesimal arbitrage opportunity is definitely NOT the same as investing in non-efficient private markets. How anyone could claim they're the same is beyond me.
There seem to be many things "beyond you" in this thread, as that's not the first time you've said that.
Here's a hint: if something is so beyond your comprehension, rather than figuring the other person is an idiot, maybe think there's something you're missing. It might help to try and understand what the other person is saying, rather than just setting up a silly straw man to something you don't understand.
Back on topic, response to your post: No one said they're the same thing, but I did say that either way, you're earning extra percent on your money, and that may not be worth the time commitment it takes. It's irrelevant where that extra percent comes from, what matters is how much you make relative to passive and how much time it takes you.
The funny part is, I'm usually on the side you're arguing. I think the real estate market is extremely inefficient, and I think someone can educate themselves and exploit that. I'm a big fan of hard money, too.
But where we disagree is that I think you vastly oversimplify it, make it sound way easier than it is, and advocate for things that have a poor risk adjusted return, like crowdfunded real estate, which is the opposite of educating yourself and taking advantage of inefficiencies.