I read your comment three times and still can’t understand it
> 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".
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've twice now made some pretty bad faith assertions.
You're clearly missing something here. Nobody is using the term "homeless" to refer to people with a spot they feel secure in.