Hacker News Reader

Comment by tasuki | Hacker News Reader

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?

View on HN

In the US, you can live in campgrounds year round in a tent. Usually a nominal fee with access to amenities. Similarly, author of the article chose to live in a tent right next door to the University where he had access to amenities. I can totally see the analogous situation here. It was a way to save money not a necessity. Both situations don’t make you homeless.

That’s my takeaway and others on the difference here. Homelessness driven by choices then turn into necessity to live. I don’t think responding to the sentiment with technical definitions from Wikipedia is the right discourse either (as done in other comments not yours). You can see the problem with this story without having to cite your comment to try to bring some strength to it.

Living in a camping is safe and stable. Hiding from the police isn't safe and stable. That is a key difference. I am not sure what you try to say.

Its pretty clear I think you are wrong. Author wasn’t homeless.

US public government campsites have stay limits. You can't actually "live" there.

Technically speaking, you can if you move. Author of article was illegally camping so I don’t think the same idea applies. I was referring to the idea of camping somewhere intentionally with amenities for fun not to live. Author could have had an apartment or other places to look into but chose not to. That doesn’t make them homeless

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?

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.

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.

> 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?

I can lack(/not have) a jacket because I choose not to bring one with me. I don't think lack necessarily makes any assertions about choosing to lack something.

Doesn't seem like it. What's the address he would have given for mail sent to him when in the tent?

ie doesn't seem like there'd be a functional one that would work

So it's pretty clear he didn't have an "official" home during that period.

When I went to college, I had a PO box. Not sure how it works in Hong Kong, but I presume something similar. My apartment on campus did not have a PO Box but my college did.

Yeah, that might be a decent workaround for some stuff.

Words have connotations. The word "homeless" has very strong connotations of poverty and the associated lack of options, i.e. lack of choices.

So yes, considering it not to be actual homelessness if it's a choice is perfectly reasonable. You can't wikipedia-lawyer your way to a functional understanding of natural language.

These are two very different things. Experiencing living in a tent for longer periods does not immediately equate forced live in poverty.

The words mean what they say they mean in order for their party to win elections. It's that simple. You deny it, they scream out in victimhood.

This shouldn't be downvoted even though it is a jaded take. I think this is EXACTLY what is on full display from all sides in this thread (to the point that it should get probably get locked).

> I know people who say they're homeless by choice.

To me, that's a blatant misnomer. Elon Musk also calls himself "homeless". (By choice, quite obviously.) There is not much to discuss once the term is assigned that meaning.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com