2 ms·
> 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 unde
by 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?
- specialist 2y agoPolicy wonks attempt to address this cognitive failure by coining terms to distinquish subsets of people without a permanent shelter (not by choice). Sadly, some people struggle with words having multiple meanings, sometimes dependent on context. While others revel in willfully refusing to understand what's what. Because arguing about correct use of language (oh the irony) distracts from taking action. A technique popularized by the OSS's WWII era field manual of sabotage.
- ternnoburn 2y agoI genuinely don't know the answer to your question. It seems like a reasonable possible interpretation? Second question, absolutely. I think we should be worrying about those people. (I personally think safe housing is a right, and something our government should provide, but now we're veering away from Tern's explaining terms to Tern's ideas on housing policy.)