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.