6 ms·
unhoused Can we stop with the language propaganda bullshit? They're homeless. We've used the term for decades
by JasserInicide 2y ago
unhoused
Can we stop with the language propaganda bullshit? They're homeless. We've used the term for decades
- deadbabe 2y agoTechnically I’d say it’s more accurate to call some of these homeless as non-functional drug addicts.
- ChrisMarshallNY 2y agoUsually, mentally ill folks (which can include drug addicts). I've known plenty of "fully functional" drug addicts that make life much harder for everyone, than some schizoaffective dude on the sidewalk. Before the 1980s, when they started shutting down the "warehouse" mental institutions, homelessness was a far less pervasive issue.
- sergiotapia 2y agowe're leaving this doublethink wordplay back in 2024 where it belongs.
- archagon 2y agoNah.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- wizzwizz4 2y agoThe words "house" and "home" mean different things. "Houseless" is more correct than "homeless" – except that not all housing is houses, so you'd have to make it "housingless", and "unhoused" is far less clumsy. (I don't think this is one worth fighting: if you feel strongly about neologisms, best to pick your battles.)
- tomcam 2y agoI read your comment three times and still can’t understand it
- ternnoburn 2y agoGreat, glad you are trying to understand. Let me break it down a bit for you and if you still have questions, ask away. > The words "house" and "home" mean different things. A house is a physical dwelling unit for humans to occupy. It's a building. A home often implies a place you reside, where you find safety and joy. The difference between these concepts gives rise to the common expression "make this house a home". People can have homes, even without a house. For instance, a digital nomad might live in an RV or van. They would call it home, but not a house. > "Houseless" is more correct than "homeless" If we decouple the idea of a physical house from the idea of a home, then "homeless" people might actually have homes -- a spot they feel secure in, a place they return to. So calling them homeless is incorrect. One can have a home but not have a house. > except that not all housing is houses, so you'd have to make it "housingless", Many things aren't "houses" per se, though they are housing. Apartments aren't houses, condos aren't houses, RVs aren't houses, etc. The umbrella term for house structures is "housing". These people lack housing of any type, not homes, so they could be called "housingless". > and "unhoused" is far less clumsy. This person would rather say "unhoused" vs "housingless", because they find it easier to say. Hope that's clarifying. I'm not interested in discussing whether the terms are good or bad. You can disagree with their use and keep using "homeless" for all I care. I just want you to understand the post being presented. Again, feel free to disagree, I just don't want you to feel like "I don't understand the reasoning".
- asdf6969 2y agoWhat’s wrong with not having a house? If somebody has a home they’re fine the way they are. I don’t have a house and it’s not a big deal.
- ternnoburn 2y agoI don't think anyone here made any statements about the value of having a house?
- _xerces_ 2y agoI think words like these are also used now as a means of signaling...well.. something about your views or beliefs or group identity. Reminds me of the politically-correct nonsense in the 90s with *-challenged, like a short person is now vertically-challenged, a bald person is folliclly-challenged or adding *-technician to something like dish-cleansing-technician.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- fiforpg 2y agoLooks like this kind of soft / euphemistic language dates back to even earlier than that. Here is a YT clip of George Carlin railing against it in his 1990 special: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o25I2fzFGoY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o25I2fzFGoY
- kadoban 2y agoIt dates back to one generation after language was invented. And bitching about it dates to one week later.
- add-sub-mul-div 2y agoLanguage constantly evolves, everywhere, sorry it offends you. It's not a conspiracy.
- JasserInicide 2y agoThere's a difference between language naturally evolving via everyday use and usage being forced on us by those with vested interests. This is a case of the latter.
- add-sub-mul-div 2y agoWhat's the vested interest here?
- mhb 2y agoThis is the sort of vapid meta-comment that someone has to make in all of these discussions. He's obviously interested in shaping the direction of the evolution. Don't be upset if not everyone agrees with your preferred evolutionary direction.
- archagon 2y agoA random HN user will have zero effect on shaping the evolutionary direction of language.
- mhb 2y agoI'm sure you can understand why the counterargument to that nihilistic contention need not even be articulated? Presumably you think your participation in this discussion will change the course of history.
- archagon 2y agoWhy is some random user getting upset over the usage of a word any more or less valuable than another random user telling them that language will evolve despite their wishes? If anything, the only "vapid meta-comment" in this thread is your own.
- vinceguidry 2y ago[flagged]
- terminatornet 2y agoquestion: who cares?
- Eumenes 2y agoThe woke city council in my town spends the first 15 mins of every meeting on land acknowledgements, followed by 30 mins on how to divvy out needles to the "unhoused" ... followed by divesting from Israeli companies in their pensions (a good cause, but it just adds to the irony).
- ars 2y ago[flagged]
- Eumenes 2y agoI don't think its antisemitic to divest from a country involved in a questionable war ... but thats not really a conversation for this thread. Fwiw, I disagree with it in general, because small town politics should be focused on small town issues, not active management of pension fund allocations based on political issues.
- dave4420 2y agoIt is to distinguish between “homeless and living on the streets” from “homeless and living on friends’ floors”?
- gopher_space 2y agoYeah, it alludes to the majority of homeless who work or are in school during the day and in shelters at night.
- ternnoburn 2y agoThey have homes, it's just that their home might be a tent under the on-ramp. Or a park bench. Or the city at large. These people are your neighbors, your neighborhood is home to them, they just don't have houses.
- euniceee3 2y agoMan that is really selling it. I lived in a car and it was my house. I will meet you in the middle there. But a tent is not a home. Even by my liberal standards of calling a vehicle a home. I think the best term that has the most impact is Sleeping Rough Outdoors. You read that and it does not matter what side you are one, you now how the person is living and it describes the plight that many homeless face when just needing to get some rest. The concept you are describing is a "homebum" which describes a person who sticks to one area. This is different than a "hobo" who keeps moving and is not as much a nuisance of homeless. A "rubber tramp" is a homeless person who lives in a vehicle.
- s1artibartfast 2y agoWhy not call them the houseless then? I think part of the linguistic shift is to imply social ownership. Unhoused describes both their state, but also a failure of someone who is responsible for housing them.
- ternnoburn 2y agoBecause that's what someone decided on and people settled on. Houseless vs unhoused... shrug language follows use, and that's what some folks use.
- robertlagrant 2y agoIn this case a use is being pushed by certain outlets that operate in lockstep. I'm not saying that's bad, but it's silly to pretend that it's an organic change.
- bloodyplonker22 2y agoThis comment is hilarious because the term used to be "vagrant", and then it was changed to "homeless" because people were offended by it. Society truly has reached a new level of being offended.
- kadoban 2y agoSociety is in a continuing state of being "offended" by the words that have become demeaning, and then we switch to new words. This is not a new thing, or anything you'd ever be able to change or stop.
- archagon 2y agoIt tends to make people who loathe the unhoused upset, so I think it’s worth doing for that reason alone. And in any case, this is just yelling into the void. Language usage will not change just because you want it to.
- mhb 2y agoWhat exactly is it that you think precipitates changes of language usage if not discussion and debate about people's preferences? And who loathes the "unhoused"?
- archagon 2y agoI've seen threads on this very site where HN users proudly described laughing at people out in the street. These were not greyed out comments, either. Elon Musk recently claimed that homelessness was a "lie" and that unhoused people were actually "violent drug zombies with dead eyes": https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/elon-musk-homeless-trump-vivek-ramaswamy-b2663740.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic... You don't have to dig very far to see the hate. At the root is a deep, inhumane entitlement to keep "undesirables" out of sight and mind, plus a conviction that anyone in that situation did something bad to deserve it.
- pxmpxm 2y agoIs "unhoused" the one for homeless person that doesn't live in a shelter? Or was that "unsheltered"? It does seem that vapid progressives love faux-academic jargon to get double plus good points.
- sangnoir 2y agoPssh, can you stop with your 19th/20th century language propaganda bullshit: They are vagabond. We've used the term for centuries[1]. /s Interestingly, the word "vagabond" is getting a rebound as "homeless" has become really unpopular lately, and as of 2022, "vagabond" saw more usage than "unhoused", which one might not have guessed given the bellyaching over other people's language. 1. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=vagabond%2Chomeless%2Cunhoused&year_start=1500&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3&case_insensitive=false https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=vagabond%2Chom...