unhoused
Can we stop with the language propaganda bullshit? They're homeless. We've used the term for decades
Can we stop with the language propaganda bullshit? They're homeless. We've used the term for decades
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.
It does seem that vapid progressives love faux-academic jargon to get double plus good points.
These people are your neighbors, your neighborhood is home to them, they just don't have houses.
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.
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.
> 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".
You've twice now made some pretty bad faith assertions.
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?
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.
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.)
You're clearly missing something here. Nobody is using the term "homeless" to refer to people with a spot they feel secure in.
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.
Before the 1980s, when they started shutting down the "warehouse" mental institutions, homelessness was a far less pervasive issue.
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%2Chom...
Very few of the comments here are discussing the posted article, and it's downright shameful. Creating a reproducible substantive shelter on permanent wheels that can be moved by its resident themselves is novel, at least to me. Underhousedness (/whatever you want to call it) is not even a pet issue of mine. But I respect a good hack, and this is a great hack.
And in any case, this is just yelling into the void. Language usage will not change just because you want it to.
And who loathes the "unhoused"?
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-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.