That Reddit thread makes me hate the word unhoused. Such obvious lib language sugar coating and skirting the issue of homelessness. It's a different issue, but it reminds me of how people call maids "domestic workers" now in South Africa.
I work around a lot of homeless people and have a friend who works directly with them. This subject came up and he said "none of the people I work with are upset at the term homeless."
There are other reasons to change language on the topic, but to me this suggests it should not be a priority. Someone can talk about putting homeless people in actual housing while someone else can talk about how the police should round up "all these unsheltered;" we know where the focus should be.
Many libs I've encountered are against using the word "unhoused," which from my understanding, is a term that was coined for genuinely good reason.
I'm lazy, so I'm going to paste from a thread from a couple weeks ago. It should be self explanatory, but just to be clear, it's a reddit chud quoted at the top who is complaining that using "unhoused" is "injecting socialism" into language.
The term "unhoused" is constructed in a way that implies that there is someone who should be "housing" the homeless person. It's a funny way of injecting hardline socialism into everyday language, which is surely the point.
I mean, they did get it, that is the point of that term. But that’s why it’s a good term, because someone (Us collectively, through the government) should be housing the homeless person. [ - @ClimateChangeAnxiety@hexbear.net
That's part of the reason. There are also plenty of unhoused people who do have homes (campsites, vehicles, shelters they've built on so-called public land, etc.) So calling them "homeless" is often, though not always, inaccurate and can be rather demeaning for someone when that is the case. Also the term "homeless" can help let the fascist pigs off the hook for destroying people's homes and literally beating people for the crime of existing in their home. I mean, how could cops do that to someone who is "lacking a home" to begin with?
If the piece of shit you're quoting is aware of any of that, I'm sure they also think those are good reasons to keep using the term homeless, but it might be harder for them to openly defend those reasons without their mask slipping a lot more.
The old man in me has a knee jerk reaction to the word "unhoused", but I think it has a legitimate purpose.
Language has always evolved words from helpful terminology to dehumanizing slurs. Then new terminology is created in response to that. When I was a kid people used the word "bum" to dehumanize, and "homeless" was a response to that. Now people use "homeless" as if they were a different species, something not worthy of human dignity. So we use "unhoused".
it will get turned into "homeless" soon enough, in implication/tone. I don't mind it as a term, but I don't think it's really important one way or another
i remember some people on the old sub got weirdly pissed about the term "rough sleepers"
the post was something like "just use the word unhoused jfc"
it was linking to an article about sleeping rough from The Big Issue, which is a magazine sold by homeless people mostly about homelessness
That Reddit thread makes me hate the word unhoused. Such obvious lib language sugar coating and skirting the issue of homelessness. It's a different issue, but it reminds me of how people call maids "domestic workers" now in South Africa.
I work around a lot of homeless people and have a friend who works directly with them. This subject came up and he said "none of the people I work with are upset at the term homeless."
There are other reasons to change language on the topic, but to me this suggests it should not be a priority. Someone can talk about putting homeless people in actual housing while someone else can talk about how the police should round up "all these unsheltered;" we know where the focus should be.
Exactly my point. Can't imagine telling a homeless person that they're actually unhoused.
Many libs I've encountered are against using the word "unhoused," which from my understanding, is a term that was coined for genuinely good reason.
I'm lazy, so I'm going to paste from a thread from a couple weeks ago. It should be self explanatory, but just to be clear, it's a reddit chud quoted at the top who is complaining that using "unhoused" is "injecting socialism" into language.
The old man in me has a knee jerk reaction to the word "unhoused", but I think it has a legitimate purpose.
Language has always evolved words from helpful terminology to dehumanizing slurs. Then new terminology is created in response to that. When I was a kid people used the word "bum" to dehumanize, and "homeless" was a response to that. Now people use "homeless" as if they were a different species, something not worthy of human dignity. So we use "unhoused".
it will get turned into "homeless" soon enough, in implication/tone. I don't mind it as a term, but I don't think it's really important one way or another
and why do people entertain the idea that this euphemism treadmill is a useful construct?
i remember some people on the old sub got weirdly pissed about the term "rough sleepers"
the post was something like "just use the word unhoused jfc"
it was linking to an article about sleeping rough from The Big Issue, which is a magazine sold by homeless people mostly about homelessness
on the other hand I once worked for a south african who called me a slave and that shit hit different.
deleted by creator