3 ms·
Lefties may well do this, but this is kind of a nonsensical argument. The alleged oversimplification was already present with "homeless". How does "houseless"
by 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 agoThis 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.