3 ms·
Why 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 failur
by s1artibartfast 2y ago
Why 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.