4 ms·

"on homeless"? I'm sorry, but are these even people to you any more? Most might say "homeless people" at least. The current thought is not to identify a perso

by pests 8y ago

"on homeless"? I'm sorry, but are these even people to you any more? Most might say "homeless people" at least. The current thought is not to identify a person based on their primary characteristic at all any more. These are not "homeless people." These are "people who are currently homeless." Not to point you out specifically as others in the discussion are using word choices like yours as well. Lets put the person first.

gsich 8y ago
And what is the primary characteristic of a homeless person? "homeless" describes it pretty good.
- pests 8y ago
  How about being a person? Or friendly? Or a good father? When someone goes bankrupt most don't say "Oh this bankrupt person tried to [blah blah]." It just seems weird to me with homeless we replace their entire personality with the trait. The following sentences say the same thing but I feel they come across vastly different. "The mentally handicapped person went to the store." vs "The person, who is mentally handicapped, went to the store."
  - gsich 8y ago
    >How about being a person? Or friendly? Or a good father? First one is obvious, every person is ... a person. 2nd and 3rd are not determinable by looking.
    - pests 8y ago
      So then let them be people. Why do you need to distill a person down to one adjective? Anyways, I can see this is pointless. I hope your day is as pleasant as you are.
      - gsich 8y ago
        I know they are people. Why do you think otherwise? Don't you think about people when you read "homeless"? Makes me wonder, since you so strongly react to it.
  - PeterisP 8y ago
    Because it's more informative. "a person" doesn't tell anything descriptive at all; "friendly" or "a good father" would be relevant if we were talking about their personalities, but if we're talking about their economic needs, then "homeless" is the single property that's most relevant to the discussion. With your examples about mental handicap, the same principle applies - it matters what's the topic of the discussion, what's the next sentence, and thus where the emphasis should be. If the fact that that person is mentally handicapped is irrelevant to the rest of the story, then "person" is the part that should be emphasised; but if the mental handicap is the key factor for what happens next, then that is the most salient information of the sentence and it should be emphasised.
    - pests 8y ago
      Then what is wrong with "person, who is homeless"? Describe the man, don't define him.
- komali2 8y ago
  Artist? Mother? PhD? Since we're firing off arbitrary primary characteristics, let's just choose "male" for me. Could be that I'm homeless. Could be I'm a billionaire. I could be a Nazi with heads in my freezer. Dimunitive language dehumanizes. Why the effort to classify with a single word?
  - gsich 8y ago
    >Why the effort to classify with a single word? Reduce redundancy. Other "occupations" do this as well. You say "painter", not "people/person who paint(s)".
    - pests 8y ago
      One, you choose your occupation. Two, if you really want to reduce redundancy just use "person/people." Everyone knows if you say "homeless person", that that person is, in fact, a person. Seems like an extra word there. If you want to be precise and point out someone is homeless, use "person, who is homeless." If two words and a comma is too redundant for you, see my first point.
      - gsich 8y ago
        yeah, with the extra word being "person", not "homeless"
  - pests 8y ago
    I answered as well without seeing your comment but you phased this much better than I did. Thank you.
_exobin_ 8y ago
I'm all for humanization, and some people can really be cruel. But I also think it is important to point out that 55% of the homeless population in SF has been homeless for a decade or more, and are not just "people who are currently homeless." And at some point we have to accept imprecise language in service of useful abstraction (which is all language is).
- pests 8y ago
  I wouldn't say its imprecise or anything. Just that focusing on the fact these are people first, and that homeless is something they are experiencing and not something they are, is important.
dang 8y ago
This pointless flamewar began by breaking this site guideline: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize." There are plenty of other plausible interpretations you could have reacted to, especially since the comment used the phrase "homeless people" a couple of words later in the same sentence. Worse, you went for personal attack downthread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17787724 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17787724). We ban accounts that do that, so please don't do that here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

by pests 8y ago

gsich 8y ago

And what is the primary characteristic of a homeless person? "homeless" describes it pretty good.

pests 8y ago
How about being a person? Or friendly? Or a good father? When someone goes bankrupt most don't say "Oh this bankrupt person tried to [blah blah]." It just seems weird to me with homeless we replace their entire personality with the trait. The following sentences say the same thing but I feel they come across vastly different. "The mentally handicapped person went to the store." vs "The person, who is mentally handicapped, went to the store."
- gsich 8y ago
  >How about being a person? Or friendly? Or a good father? First one is obvious, every person is ... a person. 2nd and 3rd are not determinable by looking.
  - pests 8y ago
    So then let them be people. Why do you need to distill a person down to one adjective? Anyways, I can see this is pointless. I hope your day is as pleasant as you are.
    - gsich 8y ago
      I know they are people. Why do you think otherwise? Don't you think about people when you read "homeless"? Makes me wonder, since you so strongly react to it.
- PeterisP 8y ago
  Because it's more informative. "a person" doesn't tell anything descriptive at all; "friendly" or "a good father" would be relevant if we were talking about their personalities, but if we're talking about their economic needs, then "homeless" is the single property that's most relevant to the discussion. With your examples about mental handicap, the same principle applies - it matters what's the topic of the discussion, what's the next sentence, and thus where the emphasis should be. If the fact that that person is mentally handicapped is irrelevant to the rest of the story, then "person" is the part that should be emphasised; but if the mental handicap is the key factor for what happens next, then that is the most salient information of the sentence and it should be emphasised.
  - pests 8y ago
    Then what is wrong with "person, who is homeless"? Describe the man, don't define him.
komali2 8y ago
Artist? Mother? PhD? Since we're firing off arbitrary primary characteristics, let's just choose "male" for me. Could be that I'm homeless. Could be I'm a billionaire. I could be a Nazi with heads in my freezer. Dimunitive language dehumanizes. Why the effort to classify with a single word?
- gsich 8y ago
  >Why the effort to classify with a single word? Reduce redundancy. Other "occupations" do this as well. You say "painter", not "people/person who paint(s)".
  - pests 8y ago
    One, you choose your occupation. Two, if you really want to reduce redundancy just use "person/people." Everyone knows if you say "homeless person", that that person is, in fact, a person. Seems like an extra word there. If you want to be precise and point out someone is homeless, use "person, who is homeless." If two words and a comma is too redundant for you, see my first point.
    - gsich 8y ago
      yeah, with the extra word being "person", not "homeless"
- pests 8y ago
  I answered as well without seeing your comment but you phased this much better than I did. Thank you.

_exobin_ 8y ago

I'm all for humanization, and some people can really be cruel. But I also think it is important to point out that 55% of the homeless population in SF has been homeless for a decade or more, and are not just "people who are currently homeless." And at some point we have to accept imprecise language in service of useful abstraction (which is all language is).

pests 8y ago
I wouldn't say its imprecise or anything. Just that focusing on the fact these are people first, and that homeless is something they are experiencing and not something they are, is important.

dang 8y ago

This pointless flamewar began by breaking this site guideline: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize." There are plenty of other plausible interpretations you could have reacted to, especially since the comment used the phrase "homeless people" a couple of words later in the same sentence. Worse, you went for personal attack downthread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17787724 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17787724). We ban accounts that do that, so please don't do that here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html