3 ms·

The 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 i

The 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 ago
I read your comment three times and still can’t understand it
- ternnoburn 2y ago
  Great, 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 ago
    What’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 ago
      I don't think anyone here made any statements about the value of having a house?
      - asdf6969 2y ago
        Ok. I guess we all agree that being unhoused is not a problem
        ternnoburn 2y ago
        I don't think anyone said that either? You've twice now made some pretty bad faith assertions.
        asdf6969 2y ago
        You are the stupidest person on this website
        ternnoburn 2y ago
        That seems unlikely. I'm open to the possibility. You'd have to provide some evidence though.
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    > 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. I don't understand the logic at this point. The person living in an RV wouldn't be counted as homeless (RV is home) but should be counted as unhoused (RV isn't a house or any sort of fixed building)? If someone has somewhere they have shelter and feel safe, that they return to, then great, they aren't homeless. Shouldn't we be worrying about the other people, who don't have homes?
Gigachad 2y ago
I’m unhoused. I live in an apartment.
- specialist 2y ago
  FFS. Unhoused is a subset of homeless people. Many homeless people have some kind of shelter. Couch surfing, vehicles, etc. IIRC, unhoused specifically means sleeping rough, eg outdoors. These distinctions are being made because silver bullet policies are failing, most laypersons equate homelessness with the visibly unhoused, and the homeless population is much bigger than just the unhoused. For a bunch of pendantic nerds who debate the finer points of type systems, the emotional rejection of an ontology meant to foster better policy is rather bewildering.
8f2ab37a-ed6c 2y ago
Kindly use the more inclusive term "the differently-housedX" if you want to show respect to the less fortunate.
asdf6969 2y ago
It’s incredibly culturally insensitive to imply not having a house is a bad thing. I live in an apartment. My King lives in a palace. I have a friend who lives in a van on purpose. Most traditional shelters don’t resemble the American ideal of a detached single family dwelling. Just say what you’re really trying to say

tomcam 2y ago

I read your comment three times and still can’t understand it

ternnoburn 2y ago
Great, 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 ago
  What’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 ago
    I don't think anyone here made any statements about the value of having a house?
    - asdf6969 2y ago
      Ok. I guess we all agree that being unhoused is not a problem
      - ternnoburn 2y ago
        I don't think anyone said that either? You've twice now made some pretty bad faith assertions.
        asdf6969 2y ago
        You are the stupidest person on this website
        ternnoburn 2y ago
        That seems unlikely. I'm open to the possibility. You'd have to provide some evidence though.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  > 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. I don't understand the logic at this point. The person living in an RV wouldn't be counted as homeless (RV is home) but should be counted as unhoused (RV isn't a house or any sort of fixed building)? If someone has somewhere they have shelter and feel safe, that they return to, then great, they aren't homeless. Shouldn't we be worrying about the other people, who don't have homes?

Gigachad 2y ago

I’m unhoused. I live in an apartment.

specialist 2y ago
FFS. Unhoused is a subset of homeless people. Many homeless people have some kind of shelter. Couch surfing, vehicles, etc. IIRC, unhoused specifically means sleeping rough, eg outdoors. These distinctions are being made because silver bullet policies are failing, most laypersons equate homelessness with the visibly unhoused, and the homeless population is much bigger than just the unhoused. For a bunch of pendantic nerds who debate the finer points of type systems, the emotional rejection of an ontology meant to foster better policy is rather bewildering.

8f2ab37a-ed6c 2y ago

Kindly use the more inclusive term "the differently-housedX" if you want to show respect to the less fortunate.

asdf6969 2y ago

It’s incredibly culturally insensitive to imply not having a house is a bad thing. I live in an apartment. My King lives in a palace. I have a friend who lives in a van on purpose. Most traditional shelters don’t resemble the American ideal of a detached single family dwelling. Just say what you’re really trying to say