3 ms·
There is a distinction between home and house. Nomadland is a good film, if you're interested in seeing a form of houselessness one step above a tent on the sid
by ahelwer 6y ago
There is a distinction between home and house. Nomadland is a good film, if you're interested in seeing a form of houselessness one step above a tent on the side of the street. You'd be surprised how many of the "regular looking" people you interact with day-to-day are unhoused and live in their cars.
Regarding your point about shirtlessness if there were an entire media cottage industry dedicated to depicting shirtless people as barely-sentient zombies spreading their infection to all you hold dear, then yeah maybe you'd want to reinforce that people should still view you as a full person.
I think English is quite versatile and escapes your desire to circumscribe it.
- carmen_sandiego 6y ago'Shirtless' people are often described in the context of being some drunken yob or party goer. Or in some sexual direction. The connotation is typically negative. And yet it somehow doesn't destroy my ability to reason about how transitive the state is. The distinction isn't relevant to the discussion we're having, and that makes it feel inelegant and forced. Though I appreciate the patronizing recommendation of a multi-mainstream-award winning niche movie to help me understand it all.
- ahelwer 6y agoI had assumed I wouldn't have to enumerate the many differences between not having a shirt and not being housed. I'm sure you're a capable person and can think about it yourself instead of continuing to carry this nonsensical comparison.
- carmen_sandiego 6y agoYes, the parallel is a rhetorical device. I don't think being shirtless is equivalent to being homeless. But I do think it's a difference of degree rather than type, and hence similar reasoning can be applied.