5 ms·

There's plenty of reasons you might want something like this. They can play an important role in public safety Also just general accessibility. Houseless peopl

by culi 4y ago

There's plenty of reasons you might want something like this. They can play an important role in public safety Also just general accessibility. Houseless people exist and every business is increasingly hostile towards letting them charge their phones. Most people who haven't had to experience houselessness aren't aware about this but next time you go to some bougie upscale shopping district try to acknowledge how many outdoor, easily accessible outlets there are. Now do the same thing in some inner city/poorer area or anywhere with a decent amount of houseless folks Or they're gonna find away to put ads in the service lol

b112 4y ago
Why is everyone suddenly calling homeless, houseless? It's homeless people, not houseless. If there is some bizarre attempt to reframe things, fine, but what does owning a house have to do with anything? A condo is not a house. An apartment is not a house. So it is: (house|apartment|townome|condo|cabin)lessness?? A home is any of the above. A house is not.
- culi 4y ago
  idk who "everyone" is. Maybe you came across another comment of mine where I also used the term houseless I use it because of a conversation I had with someone who is houseless. She didn't like being called "homeless" because the city she was sleeping in WAS her "home". She grew up there. Her parents grew up there. She went to school, knew the community there, etc. Eventually due to gentrification she couldn't afford to live in a house anymore. When the term "homeless" is used I think it often has the effect of painting those who are labelled it as not part of the community. Indeed an off-duty cop later harassed us after the talk w her and some other houseless folk and told me "we don't want them in our community". The cop had an out-of-state license plate... Whether it's a house or an apartment, the point imo is to draw attention to how our definitions of who does and doesn't have the right to claim membership of a community has been degraded to purely material means. This person who's not even from this state gets to say he doesn't want HER in "our community"
  - b112 4y ago
    Changing terms is meaningless, as any stigma assigned to the prior term immediately exists for the new term. And that unfortunate woman does indeed have no home, even if she is living in her old home town. Home has more than one meaning. This is just virtue signaling.
    - hutzlibu 4y ago
      I would disagree that it is meaningless, as words have meaning and make it into thoughts. But sure, just renaming something doesn't magically solve the big root issue. But it can make people aware a bit more, which is something. "And that unfortunate woman does indeed have no home" And home is where your heart is. Homeless people also have their spots. Their living space, their sleeping space etc. it is just all in the open.
      - b112 4y ago
        Yes, they do have a home in the open, but they have no home. (This is how multiple definition words work)
    - braingenious 4y ago
      Changing terms appear to have enough meaning to compel you to try to stamp out others usage of language. Isn’t trying to impose your view of the necessity of the word “homeless” its own sort of virtue signaling, just of another virtue? (In this case, I’d assume the virtue you attempt to espouse is that of adherence to traditional social mores from your youth?)
      - throwawayacc3 4y ago
        It's not "imposing the necessity of the word", it's calling out the nonsensical euphemistic language that gets churned out by the most neurotic of society and then imposed upon everyone. George Carlin called this specific phenomenon out decades ago [0]. You can kvetch about using words that signal your virtue, but homelessness has a codified definition [1]. [0] https://youtube.com/watch?v=o25I2fzFGoY https://youtube.com/watch?v=o25I2fzFGoY [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK218239/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK218239/
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  There's a leftwing trop that the way to get attention and bring about change is to take charge of the words in the conversation. It goes back to an influential book called Keywords for Radicals. In this specific case the argument is that '[City or town] is their home, they just don't have access to housing' - which is true enough in that people who are homeless often still have strong social and community despite finding themselves living in a vehicle or on the street. Trying to redefine the conversation by changing the wording seems rather clumsy and inept to me, but also your objection it in overly pedantic. You can just keep using 'homeless' (as I do) and simply ignore side arguments about the semantics.
  - tssva 4y ago
    The latest effort I've come across is very much a right wing effort. Trying to rename Native Americans as First Immigrants.
    - b112 4y ago
      I detest any renaming such as this, and this is compounded here, as most native Americans were certainly not "first". Most archeological evidence I've read up on, shows those we call native americans, to be only one of a multitude of immigrant waves. And yes, their arrival displaced those already here, sometimes violently. Every beast and creature wars, and competes, for territory. Humans are no different.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
        "Immigrant waves" ... probably not. Reaching the Americas from Asia, Africa, Europe by sea is probably not impossible and likely happened more than we tend to imagine, but was still extremely challenging. There has probably not been a multitude of immigrant waves. "Normal patterns of within-continent human migration" ... sure. My Hopi neighbor still (jokingly) calls the Dine (Navajo) "those Athabascans" (referring to the people of what is now British Columbia who migrated to what is now the US soutwest in the 1400s).
- braingenious 4y ago
  Fun fact! Words take on different meanings as they are used by differing groups of people! While you are correct that an apartment is not a house, did you know that they are considered to be a type of housing? Further, the concept of “housing” in English has been acceptable for many decades! It’s neat how English works!
- onetokeoverthe 4y ago
- nemo44x 4y ago
  We live in a time when even bums are concerned with their titles and how their status is conveyed.
- snapplebobapple 4y ago
  It is lefties to far lefties trying to reframe things to trick people into thinking if you give these people a house all their glaring other problems, like drug abuse, will magically disappear. It oversimplifies the problem, but is probably true for a very small percentage of homeless. The deceit is that that same small minority of homeless that this will actually work for would be helped far more by removing policies that are keeping housing prices artificially high, like the excessively restrictive zoning and long permitting processes and that would benefit everyone else except for the entrenched nimbys who pushed that crap in the first place to accumulate unjust gains for themselves.
  - recursive 4y ago
    Lefties may well do this, but this is kind of a nonsensical argument. The alleged oversimplification was already present with "homeless". How does "houseless" imply any simpler solution? Give 'em a home, give 'em a house. Both sound equally reductive to me.
    - snapplebobapple 4y ago
      This is the smart guy logic argument when politics is not governed by logic, it is governed by emotion and therefore marketing. Homeless does not oversimplify the problem in the same way that houseless does because homeless has all the negative connotations of people's experience with homeless associated it with it. The negative connotations of the actions of the homeless people the listener has come in contact with are brought up by that term so a listener with any experience will realize giving a homeless person a house will solve almost no problems and cost a huge amount of money. Whereas houseless is a new term with little to no baggage so it's easier to sell people obviously stupid ideas by changing the terms whenever the new term captures all the connotations of the old term. It's the euphemism treadmill abused for marketing rather than being used to describe the process of transferring meaning to overcome this kind of thing.
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  Think of it as "house" as in "housing".
echelon 4y ago
Payphones with ads seem like they could make a limited comeback in certain extremely busy locations: airports, popular venues, bars, etc. For all non-emergency services [1], play an ad at call initiation and again to both the speaker and the listener every minute or so. I've been stuck with a dead smartphone at music concerts and festivals a few times, and it was not easy to find a charger. A payphone could have worked to phone a friend. Nobody remembers phone numbers anymore. Add the ability to call Google Hangouts (or whatever that's called now), Facebook Messenger, or other services and it would be effectively modernized. [1] This would need a database of callers not to interrupt - local 911, hospitals, utility companies, etc. are all important emergency services. Wouldn't want to listen to jingles while the gas line is leaking.
- onetokeoverthe 4y ago
mitthrowaway2 4y ago
I recently travelled internationally and was reminded how hard even simple things like changing a restaurant reservation can be when my cell phone isn't compatible with the local providers. I actually did have to rely on pay phones and was lucky to find some.

by culi 4y ago

b112 4y ago

Why is everyone suddenly calling homeless, houseless? It's homeless people, not houseless. If there is some bizarre attempt to reframe things, fine, but what does owning a house have to do with anything? A condo is not a house. An apartment is not a house. So it is: (house|apartment|townome|condo|cabin)lessness?? A home is any of the above. A house is not.

culi 4y ago
idk who "everyone" is. Maybe you came across another comment of mine where I also used the term houseless I use it because of a conversation I had with someone who is houseless. She didn't like being called "homeless" because the city she was sleeping in WAS her "home". She grew up there. Her parents grew up there. She went to school, knew the community there, etc. Eventually due to gentrification she couldn't afford to live in a house anymore. When the term "homeless" is used I think it often has the effect of painting those who are labelled it as not part of the community. Indeed an off-duty cop later harassed us after the talk w her and some other houseless folk and told me "we don't want them in our community". The cop had an out-of-state license plate... Whether it's a house or an apartment, the point imo is to draw attention to how our definitions of who does and doesn't have the right to claim membership of a community has been degraded to purely material means. This person who's not even from this state gets to say he doesn't want HER in "our community"
- b112 4y ago
  Changing terms is meaningless, as any stigma assigned to the prior term immediately exists for the new term. And that unfortunate woman does indeed have no home, even if she is living in her old home town. Home has more than one meaning. This is just virtue signaling.
  - hutzlibu 4y ago
    I would disagree that it is meaningless, as words have meaning and make it into thoughts. But sure, just renaming something doesn't magically solve the big root issue. But it can make people aware a bit more, which is something. "And that unfortunate woman does indeed have no home" And home is where your heart is. Homeless people also have their spots. Their living space, their sleeping space etc. it is just all in the open.
    - b112 4y ago
      Yes, they do have a home in the open, but they have no home. (This is how multiple definition words work)
  - braingenious 4y ago
    Changing terms appear to have enough meaning to compel you to try to stamp out others usage of language. Isn’t trying to impose your view of the necessity of the word “homeless” its own sort of virtue signaling, just of another virtue? (In this case, I’d assume the virtue you attempt to espouse is that of adherence to traditional social mores from your youth?)
    - throwawayacc3 4y ago
      It's not "imposing the necessity of the word", it's calling out the nonsensical euphemistic language that gets churned out by the most neurotic of society and then imposed upon everyone. George Carlin called this specific phenomenon out decades ago [0]. You can kvetch about using words that signal your virtue, but homelessness has a codified definition [1]. [0] https://youtube.com/watch?v=o25I2fzFGoY https://youtube.com/watch?v=o25I2fzFGoY [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK218239/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK218239/
anigbrowl 4y ago
There's a leftwing trop that the way to get attention and bring about change is to take charge of the words in the conversation. It goes back to an influential book called Keywords for Radicals. In this specific case the argument is that '[City or town] is their home, they just don't have access to housing' - which is true enough in that people who are homeless often still have strong social and community despite finding themselves living in a vehicle or on the street. Trying to redefine the conversation by changing the wording seems rather clumsy and inept to me, but also your objection it in overly pedantic. You can just keep using 'homeless' (as I do) and simply ignore side arguments about the semantics.
- tssva 4y ago
  The latest effort I've come across is very much a right wing effort. Trying to rename Native Americans as First Immigrants.
  - b112 4y ago
    I detest any renaming such as this, and this is compounded here, as most native Americans were certainly not "first". Most archeological evidence I've read up on, shows those we call native americans, to be only one of a multitude of immigrant waves. And yes, their arrival displaced those already here, sometimes violently. Every beast and creature wars, and competes, for territory. Humans are no different.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
      "Immigrant waves" ... probably not. Reaching the Americas from Asia, Africa, Europe by sea is probably not impossible and likely happened more than we tend to imagine, but was still extremely challenging. There has probably not been a multitude of immigrant waves. "Normal patterns of within-continent human migration" ... sure. My Hopi neighbor still (jokingly) calls the Dine (Navajo) "those Athabascans" (referring to the people of what is now British Columbia who migrated to what is now the US soutwest in the 1400s).
braingenious 4y ago
Fun fact! Words take on different meanings as they are used by differing groups of people! While you are correct that an apartment is not a house, did you know that they are considered to be a type of housing? Further, the concept of “housing” in English has been acceptable for many decades! It’s neat how English works!
onetokeoverthe 4y ago
nemo44x 4y ago
We live in a time when even bums are concerned with their titles and how their status is conveyed.
snapplebobapple 4y ago
It is lefties to far lefties trying to reframe things to trick people into thinking if you give these people a house all their glaring other problems, like drug abuse, will magically disappear. It oversimplifies the problem, but is probably true for a very small percentage of homeless. The deceit is that that same small minority of homeless that this will actually work for would be helped far more by removing policies that are keeping housing prices artificially high, like the excessively restrictive zoning and long permitting processes and that would benefit everyone else except for the entrenched nimbys who pushed that crap in the first place to accumulate unjust gains for themselves.
- recursive 4y ago
  Lefties may well do this, but this is kind of a nonsensical argument. The alleged oversimplification was already present with "homeless". How does "houseless" imply any simpler solution? Give 'em a home, give 'em a house. Both sound equally reductive to me.
  - snapplebobapple 4y ago
    This is the smart guy logic argument when politics is not governed by logic, it is governed by emotion and therefore marketing. Homeless does not oversimplify the problem in the same way that houseless does because homeless has all the negative connotations of people's experience with homeless associated it with it. The negative connotations of the actions of the homeless people the listener has come in contact with are brought up by that term so a listener with any experience will realize giving a homeless person a house will solve almost no problems and cost a huge amount of money. Whereas houseless is a new term with little to no baggage so it's easier to sell people obviously stupid ideas by changing the terms whenever the new term captures all the connotations of the old term. It's the euphemism treadmill abused for marketing rather than being used to describe the process of transferring meaning to overcome this kind of thing.
PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
Think of it as "house" as in "housing".

echelon 4y ago

Payphones with ads seem like they could make a limited comeback in certain extremely busy locations: airports, popular venues, bars, etc. For all non-emergency services [1], play an ad at call initiation and again to both the speaker and the listener every minute or so. I've been stuck with a dead smartphone at music concerts and festivals a few times, and it was not easy to find a charger. A payphone could have worked to phone a friend. Nobody remembers phone numbers anymore. Add the ability to call Google Hangouts (or whatever that's called now), Facebook Messenger, or other services and it would be effectively modernized. [1] This would need a database of callers not to interrupt - local 911, hospitals, utility companies, etc. are all important emergency services. Wouldn't want to listen to jingles while the gas line is leaking.

onetokeoverthe 4y ago

mitthrowaway2 4y ago

I recently travelled internationally and was reminded how hard even simple things like changing a restaurant reservation can be when my cell phone isn't compatible with the local providers. I actually did have to rely on pay phones and was lucky to find some.