8 ms·

That was surely a great experiment. But it's very different from actual homelessness. I would have appreciated if the author had acknowledged that more. It's cl

• syllogism 1y ago
  Homelessness is a somewhat broad category though. There's lots of people couch-surfing between friends and their car. They're also in a very different position from people who are sleeping rough.
  • burnt-resistor 1y ago
    I only experienced traditional rough sleeping homelessness once when my "house" (my van) was towed and I had to sleep in an hostile architecture bus stop bench that had ridges between each "seat" area. Otherwise, I was technically "homeless"/vanliving in SV from about 2010-2019.
    • larodi 1y ago
      Van is still a home, isn’t it?
      • erikerikson 1y ago
        The word home can apply to a van. I also know people who are considered unhoused/homeless whose home is a van.
        • larodi 1y ago
          van is a home if you have your stuff in it, live in it, and enjoy moving around, this does not make you homeless, sorry. is a home on wheels and can be very comfortable should you decide so.
          • erikerikson 1y ago
            I already said home can apply to a van. We have no argument there.
            • larodi 1y ago
              yes, sorry, my bad, just dont get it why comment got downvoted. no harm was intended.
              • erikerikson 1y ago
                No harm caused to me. I commented instead of downvoting. However, to speculate, you implied a person isn't homeless if they have a van. You were responding to a comment containing: > I was technically "homeless"/vanliving Wherein they were relating their experience and recognized that they were vanliving (living in their van as their home) and even quoted their use of homeless, calling themselves "technically" so. Even someone living in a tent or sleeping on the ground, if they keep returning to a site could say that site was their home. Some say the world is their home or that the region they stay in is. They would still be very clearly considered homeless despite having a "home". As I understand it, it is a gray area whether vanliving is legal. You are allowed to park a vehicle but the owner doesn't have unlimited right to leave the van in one spot and live there. Even living in a van on your own land can be against code. People sleeping rough generally have no recognized right to sleep where they do. They are frequently moved and more often harassed. The situation is similar for those living in a van. Anyway, that aside and trying to speculate about your downvote(s?), the context was that you started a language specificity discussion with someone who appeared to be unsure about the right words and hesitant to call themselves homeless. There were plenty of places on this thread to have that discussion but this doesn't seem an appropriate spot to me. I don't know whether that poster even knows you responded but if they do, I could see your response causing some difficult thoughts and/or emotions. I doubt you intended harm but it can be helpful to consider the context to minimize the risk of harm or even just better understand the diverse manners in which your comments could be received. Hope you enjoy commenting here and learn from it and the comments of others.
• 5mv2 1y ago
  Author here. I get this view, I just think it's worth underlining how biased it is to the SF Bay area dystopian situation. I've actually gone out of my way to meet homeless in the Bay. You'd be surprised how much of a continuum homelessness is. Most are definitely living hell on earth, but many I personally met have both fallbacks and money. Could be they're too attached to their family's image of them. Or that they weirdly enough have a better life now - I met a guy who led a small community and made quite some money from crime, he could have afforded to live anywhere, but this would mean taking a menial job like he had in the past, and he didn't want that. Of course, the disclaimer is that many homeless care a lot about their self-image and will create stories to justify their current situation so it's hard to judge. But the point still stands that, even in hell of earth for the homeless, you'll find it's a continuum. And the world is much broader than SF - I've met people at every point of the spectrum, the most extreme being a multi-millionaire who lived Swiss forests for fun! To summarize, there is no "actual homelessness", it's not a boolean but a spectrum, and I fail to see how gatekeeping the use of the most adequate word in this situation helps anyone. If the problem is that it using the word comes across as disrespectful to people who mainly know homelessness through the prism of the Bay Area, maybe another avenue could be to add a link at the end of the article to promote a relevant NGO, which I'm definitely open to adding if people suggest a good one.
  • yusina 1y ago
    I'm not sure where all your mentions of the Bay Area come from. I'm writing from a European perspective, and in all major European cities you find homelessness prevalent. And it's not pretty. A millionaire in the Swiss forest is not homeless. Choosing to live in a tent is not homelessness. To me, the term "homeless" implies a lack of alternatives. As soon as it's a choice, to see romantic sunrises or fall asleep to ocean waves or whatever, that is, if calles "homeless", to me, a misuse of the term. It's a nice life, I've done it too and loved it, but I'd not start to call it "homelessness" and place myself into the same category as the poor souls sleeping under a bridge. Of course it's a spectrum. Some folks have been forced out of their home and are living out of a car while finding a new place. That's homelessness. For some of those, it's temporary. For others, it's a spiral into misery, next is to lose the job, having a mental health issue, soon the car breaks down, and eventually they are sleeping under a bridge. Insubstantial of whether it's in SF, Berlin, Sao Paulo or Tokyo. Similarities to a concious choice are only superficial. Once it's a choice, it's outside the spectrum and is doing the fight against homelessness a disservice.
• Laaas 1y ago
  What is the purpose of this comment? Gatekeeping him and telling him he wasn’t _actually_ homeless?
  • yusina 1y ago
    I find it useful that terms have meaning and one can distinguish between what belongs to it and what doesn't. A pork steak is a piece of meat taken from a pig. Once it's made of beans or some mushroom it may still be tasty (and I love good veggie food), but it's not a pork steak. Similarly, the term "homeless" also has a certain meaning, and using it for something else muddies communication waters. And at worst, it makes the fight against actual homelessness harder: Next time some tax dollar is planned to be used for relief, somebody will point to those cases and say "well some homeless enjoy the sunrise and love the outdoors and have two suits in locker, and ain't none of my tax dollars go to that!!" If you want to call that "gatekeeping", then sure. What's the purpose of your comment then? Gatekeeping me and telling me I should not call out the misuse of the term?
    • larodi 1y ago
      Common meaning is the protocol prerequisite for understanding and very often undervalued. Words bring vibrations? Perhaps I don’t know, but they bring very strong meaning very often and in most languages also, even though English being famous for the same word meaning different things in different contexts, the conveyed meaning itself is still very important. And homeless implies less of something which can be a moral choice also, but still there’s the ‘less’ which is not there when your bank account has enough for other options. The mental less in homelessness is bitter and very often related to certain major calamity.
      • deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
    • eastbound 1y ago
      Gatekeeping words would be important if it were respected. Unfortunately it is not, when the context doesn’t favor a specific flavour of the outcome. Example in France, “homeless” is called SDF, and it means “no home” (no fixed address to receive mail, although shelters allow mail) but doesn’t mean “no roof”. And that was done to include women, because women were practically not represented on the street, as they often have someone who can host them, even if they cannot call it home. There is no word (except derogatory like “Claudo”, or workarounds like “on the street”) to describe the homelessness that men suffer. Now, since women represent 16% SDF, but most of them are hosted, they do not tend to die during winters. They do not tend to face street violence. They do not match those stats. Unfortunately, since they still represent 16% of SDF, they also get reserved budgets in addition to the budgets which are destined to homelessness in general (and which are themselves already allocated with a slant towards the female gender - the whole thing is absolutely despicable). So, since words are perverted for political goals precisely in this area, I’d rather we let history written by the writers, with their own appreciation of the words’ meaning. The usual side will win again, but when there is an odd article not written in “the correct way”, let it live.
• tasuki 1y ago
  Are you saying it's not actual homelessness because it was a choice? Wikipedia says homelessness is "the condition of lacking stable, safe, and functional housing". It doesn't say anything about it having to be a choice. I know people who say they're homeless by choice. Would you say that's an oxymoron?
  • larodi 1y ago
    These are two very different things. Experiencing living in a tent for longer periods does not immediately equate forced live in poverty.
  • angusturner 1y ago
    By the definition you have provided though, someone that has access to stable, safe or functional housing but then chooses to not to use it (eg opting to camp instead), is not homeless. Edit: the word “lack” really is the key word. This implies no choice, right?
    • stinkbeetle 1y ago
      I don't follow what you're getting at. OP did not have the budget to afford a house so he had to go homeless. He could have made other choices to afford a house sure, but many other homeless people could also theoretically make choices that would enable them to get housing.
      • celticninja 1y ago
        The author has the opportunity to make choices about their situation, homeless people lack that choice, they can't just go get a job, or they can't get the money together for a deposit. They can't afford to travel to where the work is. Theoretically they could choose to get treatment for addiction or mental health problems, but practically that isn't available to them.
        • stinkbeetle 1y ago
          > The author has the opportunity to make choices about their situation, homeless people lack that choice, As adjudicated by whom? > they can't just go get a job, or they can't get the money together for a deposit. They can't afford to travel to where the work is. Many could actually. Some could move to lower cost of living areas. Some could choose to get education or training that enables them to get a job in the future. Some could get jobs, some could certainly move to where there are jobs. Some could choose to quit recreational drugs and alcohol. Some could use their welfare or disability payments and move to lower cost of living areas. Some who dislike living with others could choose to put housing above that preference and could afford move into group housing. Many do these things actually, I have heard many first hand stories from people getting themselves out of homelessness. So how are we weighing up all these choices and deciding who is a "valid homeless" and who is not?
• throw_a_grenade 1y ago
  Stuff that we consider abnormal (homelessness, migration/seeking asylum, etc.) is at some point personal decision („I'm going to try to move to the next country, whatever it takes”), even if usually are not perceived as real choices, e.g. when the alternative is a lack of food or to sustain persecution. But a decision nonetheless, and one that will be taken by resourceful people, those who can spend a night or a fortnight in a tent. If you know how to survive in a forest, you're a good candidate for a homeless or a migrant. Such decision point might be closer than you think.
  • yusina 1y ago
    Calling it a "choice" to seek asylum in another country because of war or threat of death in someone's home country for e.g. sexual orientation reasons is beyond cynical and cruel. I truly hope you will never be in such a situation and then meeting somebody telling you that you are a refugee because of a choice you made.
    • kortilla 1y ago
      Seeking asylum is absolutely a choice. Both in choosing to leave the country and where you choose to go.
      • yusina 1y ago
        The step from "it's a choice" to "it's your fault" is very small. There is a whole industry of populists thriving on the lack of distinguishing between these two. Tech people often miss the social connotations such terms bring with them. Understandable, as many got into tech because of its clear definitions and lack of ambiguity and baggage, but the real world just doesn't work that way, and we have to acknowledge this.
        • throw_a_grenade 1y ago
          This is HN, not fediverse, I thougt we can have a discussion that would involve making a distinction on this nuance (choice vs decision vs responsibility vs fault), instead on casting general aspersions, as is the case in other social media.
• Levitating 1y ago
  > Real homelessness is born out of desperation and lack of alternatives. There's no single cause or experience for being homeless. There's no "real homelessness" either. You might be interested to read "20-25% of all 'homeless' actually have housing" by Kevin Dahlgren. https://truthonthestreets.substack.com/p/20-25-of-all-homeless-actually-have https://truthonthestreets.substack.com/p/20-25-of-all-homele...
  • greensh 1y ago
    the same david dalgren who was sentenced for stealing identities of homeless people and stealing funds? https://www.yahoo.com/news/kevin-dahlgren-former-gresham-employee-195936664.html?guccounter=1 https://www.yahoo.com/news/kevin-dahlgren-former-gresham-emp... also this seems a really entitled take to say, "there is no homelessness" when there clearly is.
    • Levitating 1y ago
      It's the same Kevin Dahlgren. I don't know the complete story, but he allegedly wrote off transactions under fake names when doing work for the municipality of Gresham. I did remember reading somewhere that the goods he bought were given to the homeless but I don't remember where I read it. Regardless I still really enjoy reading his blog. > also this seems a really entitled take to say, "there is no homelessness" when there clearly is. He's never said that and that's not the point of the article I linked either. Kevin has dedicated his life to recording the life of homeless people so he's clearly aware of it's presence. I think his work is quite important. There doesn't appear to be many people researchig homelessness who actually spend time on the street interviewing them. His posts and videos have given me a whole different view of homelessness, most of which in more vein of what the first commenter here was talking about. But it has also taught me that homelessness can be quite diverse. If you're interested in the life of the homeless at all you should definitely read some of his blog. His collaborations with Tyler Oliveira on YouTube are also extremely interesting.
      • greensh 1y ago
        > There's no "real homelessness" either. Sorry, then I misinterpreted this sentence
• sandworm101 1y ago
  Not just warrents, but restrictions post-release than limit where persons can live.
• deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]