7 ms·

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 hom

by 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/
soupfordummies 4y ago
Why don't you go argue about the semantics and terminology with your local "person who has no roof over their head" otherwise aren't you just kinda doing your own sort of virtue signaling by arguing about it on the Internet?
culi 4y ago
> Home has more than one meaning. Exactly! > And that unfortunate woman does indeed have no home, even if she is living in her old home town. Oh. Interesting how you acknowledge the fluidity of the meaning of home but then impose your very specific formulation of it onto others You know how college students who live in dorms tend to differentiate between "home" (as in going back to their dorm after a night of drinking) and "home home" (as in I'm going back home over the weekend). Clearly there's a lot more to the definition of "home" here than just the shape of the building you sleep in. I don't think you have to be a romantic poet to relate to the feeling of feeling "at home" in the arms of someone you love. Or to move to an apt in a new city and have it never feel like home because you struggle to recreate the feeling of belonging to a community you felt previously Conversely, I'm sure many people relate to the feeling of it taking a while for a new "house" they moved in to really feel like "home". And there are some sleeping arrangements that might never feel like home like a college dorm or a stay at a hotel/motel > Changing terms is meaningless, as any stigma assigned to the prior term immediately exists for the new term. Not really what I'm trying to do. Just changing my own language to be more accurate to what I want to be talking about. Language changes. That's kinda its thing. If you wanna spend your life fighting the very nature of language you'll probably burn yourself out
- CogitoCogito 4y ago
  > Oh. Interesting how you acknowledge the fluidity of the meaning of home but then impose your very specific formulation of it onto others Just as you're imposing your specific formulation? > Language changes. That's kinda its thing. If you wanna spend your life fighting the very nature of language you'll probably burn yourself out I would very surprised if "homeless" as a term were not used orders of magnitude more than "houseless". The standard term quite simply is "homeless". You (and your acquaintance) are the ones fighting the language. You may win and your terminology may become standard, but language has hardly evolved to the point where the people using the (supposedly) old terminology are fighting the tide. That said I find your acquaintance's position interesting. I don't, however, think that saying "houseless" instead of "homeless" is making the "language to be more accurate". "Home" has multiple meanings. With one of them your acquaintance is unquestionably "homeless" while with the other she is not. For what it's worth, I consider homeless people as members of the community and that the city is just as much their home as it is mine. I don't find the multiple meanings all that confusing.

by b112 4y ago

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/

soupfordummies 4y ago

Why don't you go argue about the semantics and terminology with your local "person who has no roof over their head" otherwise aren't you just kinda doing your own sort of virtue signaling by arguing about it on the Internet?

culi 4y ago

> Home has more than one meaning. Exactly! > And that unfortunate woman does indeed have no home, even if she is living in her old home town. Oh. Interesting how you acknowledge the fluidity of the meaning of home but then impose your very specific formulation of it onto others You know how college students who live in dorms tend to differentiate between "home" (as in going back to their dorm after a night of drinking) and "home home" (as in I'm going back home over the weekend). Clearly there's a lot more to the definition of "home" here than just the shape of the building you sleep in. I don't think you have to be a romantic poet to relate to the feeling of feeling "at home" in the arms of someone you love. Or to move to an apt in a new city and have it never feel like home because you struggle to recreate the feeling of belonging to a community you felt previously Conversely, I'm sure many people relate to the feeling of it taking a while for a new "house" they moved in to really feel like "home". And there are some sleeping arrangements that might never feel like home like a college dorm or a stay at a hotel/motel > Changing terms is meaningless, as any stigma assigned to the prior term immediately exists for the new term. Not really what I'm trying to do. Just changing my own language to be more accurate to what I want to be talking about. Language changes. That's kinda its thing. If you wanna spend your life fighting the very nature of language you'll probably burn yourself out

CogitoCogito 4y ago
> Oh. Interesting how you acknowledge the fluidity of the meaning of home but then impose your very specific formulation of it onto others Just as you're imposing your specific formulation? > Language changes. That's kinda its thing. If you wanna spend your life fighting the very nature of language you'll probably burn yourself out I would very surprised if "homeless" as a term were not used orders of magnitude more than "houseless". The standard term quite simply is "homeless". You (and your acquaintance) are the ones fighting the language. You may win and your terminology may become standard, but language has hardly evolved to the point where the people using the (supposedly) old terminology are fighting the tide. That said I find your acquaintance's position interesting. I don't, however, think that saying "houseless" instead of "homeless" is making the "language to be more accurate". "Home" has multiple meanings. With one of them your acquaintance is unquestionably "homeless" while with the other she is not. For what it's worth, I consider homeless people as members of the community and that the city is just as much their home as it is mine. I don't find the multiple meanings all that confusing.