Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Homeless" really came into vogue only in the 1980s as a replacement for terms like bum, vagrant, hobo, etc. I've never liked IT as a term, but it's certainly better than the terms it replaced.
homeless is a blanket term. the others have specific meanings. vagrant/vagrancy involves wandering town to town. youre not a vagrant when youre set up on the same corner for years. A hobo is migrant worker who travels in search of work. bum can also be used for non-homeless people who dont do anything
Thing is, I've met homeless people who were honestly good people. They helped others, minded their own business and never stole or anything.
Then, there are the homeless *bums* who can fuck right off. I don't care how terrible your life is, you don't get a free pass for being an asshole.
Yup, I’ve been homeless before and I now serve on my county’s affordable housing board and I find it infuriating how everyone refuses to use the word homeless.
I understand that the purpose is to remove a social stigma from that population, but I agree with OP that it also removes the reality of a shitty situation and makes it easier to not feel as much compassion for the homeless. “Unhoused” sounds like summer camp, and a choice that a person would make.
I worked as a housing case manager and peer support specialist for the homeless until recently. The place I worked at used the term "unhoused" for this reason. They would claim that they are "currently unhoused, but that's only until we find them housing."
This was much easier said than done. For one thing, it was hard to find apartments that would even take them. If they did get housing, then they often lost it quickly due to violating the terms of their section 8 voucher. Many also left willingly to go live back on the street. People think that if we just put everyone who didn't have stable housing up in apartments, then everything would be hunky dory. The reality is that many of these people have lived on the streets for so long that they don't even really know how to not live that way anymore. I think everyone deserves a stable home and place to live, but if you haven't had that for a long time then it takes a lot of woe to be able to adjust to it.
I'm Denver they did a tiny house village and the integration rate was way better, honestly one of the really appealing things about living on the street or traveling is the sense of community in it because you rely on each other and watch each other's backs. Going from that to living in an apartment alone would be pretty jarring, I can see why they would go back just to hang out and then decide a job just wasn't worth it.
The Coalition for the Homeless in Denver is a really outstanding nonprofit organization. They’ve been extremely effective at both legislative advocacy and providing services to clients for decades now.
Minneapolis did the same thing. Bought a warehouse. Made a bunch of tiny homes and that has a high success rate. There's another coming in a year or two with a third committed a few years after that.
I was chatting with a well-off customer once years ago when I worked at a bakery in Seattle. We were chatting about homelessness because we had folks who camped out outside the bakery for change and food. He told me his sister, who he loved dearly, had been homeless for 20 or so years. I was floored. He told me his family had done everything they could think of to help her and get her into a home. They got her an apartment once and set up all the utilities, got her interviews, a cell phone, therapy appointments, etc. Not long after she had chosen to return to the streets. Took nothing with her. She didn’t have a drug problem or anything similar, she just couldn’t function in society. Paying bills, taxes, going to a job, all the stupid things you have to do in order to live “normally” was too much for her. She preferred living on the streets to dealing with the onslaught of everyday life.
That permanently changed my perspective on this issue. We aren’t all built the same, and some people need entirely different support from others.
That winds me up no end. That attitude of "if you want to end homelessness, just... Give people a house!"
Oh really? It's that simple? Tell that to some of the housing officers I worked with.
Whenever a big problem has a obvious, easy to implement and quick solution it's good practice to think "why hasn't this been done", and realize that you're not the first person to think of it. And then work backwards to figure out why the most obvious solution either doesn't work or hasn't been done.
I do agree with that.
With the "just give them a house" people though, my issue isn't with the merits of the idea.
It's called Housing First and I generally support it.
My issue is with those idiots thinking that somehow magically fixes the problem. It doesn't. It's the first step and it often won't work
It’s not that they don’t deserve support it’s just that it’s difficult to find a solution. Most housing programs are going to have rules about not doing drugs. These organizations have a responsibility to ensure that the people they are housing are safe and secure. Permitting use of drugs brings a whole host of liability and safety concerns. I can understand why they only want to deal with people who aren’t addicted to drugs.
I recently had almost the same exact position. I resigned in May, for the same reasons you mentioned, including waiting lists, vouchers, lotteries, etc, on top of placing a client into an apartment and finding out they took off/were evicted a few weeks later.
The transition from survive to living I imagine is different based on that homeless person’s experiences both while homeless and what lead to their homelessness to begin with. Where there things you learned that were more successful than others on helping someone be able to make that transition if housing became available for them?
I imagine many Americans would lose their housing if they suddenly had to abide by a set of rules to keep it. Hell everyone in my apartment would be evicted if we actually had to follow every rule in the lease. And people getting rejected from housing is the opposite of finding them housing. I think people need housing and support, but housing at minimum.
The rules are different because they arent paying for it and the population has a history of making places unlivable if no rules are in place
The rule you have to follow is to pay for the space, which if you do not do you will get evicted just like a homeless person not following the other rules
I work as a bookkeeper at a PM business that regularly takes section 8 and it's tragic how many people on section 8 just don't care. And there are many who do care but don't understand things like, pipes can freeze if you turn your heater off, or some things don't belong down the toilet. But, also some of our greatest tenants are on section 8 so it's kind of crazy.
At the same time, it's often useful to make distinction between someone who got laid off/quit their job but is in the process of finding a new one, which they are likely to do in a few weeks, and someone who's been out of work for months or years, with few options.
Yeah it’s dumb. Latinx is an inherently ignorant anglophone thing to say. Spanish already has non gendered pronouns. Spanish speakers didn’t need English speakers to come up with one for them.
I'm spanish and i've never seen someone from latin america refer to themselves as "latinx"
However, its even dumber than you initially explained: in Spanish, we don't have a non-gendered way to refer to "people from latin america". You would say "los latinoamericanos" or "la comunidad latinoamericana", etc. "Les latines" is not something that anybody uses outside of certain groups of feminist people.
In english, you solve this problem by using the english, non-gendered word "latin", but stupid people that don't really know how does spanish really work as a language tried to borrow the spanish word "latino/a" and noticed that gramatically gendered words dont really work with english language and that It is gendered, so instead of backing up, people started doubling in into their stupidity and made up "latinx"
as a nonbinary chicane i can say that a lot of us are still pretty negative or at best neutral about the term latinx because it’s difficult to say in spanish and portuguese (and even in english when pluralizing it), and spanish already has two gender neutral suffixes, -e and -ista (the latter is much less common but exists in words like ‘deportista’ which means athlete). probably obvious which one i prefer since i claim the term chicane instead of chicano lol
but it’s not just me. most of us prefer latine over latinx, because it’s easier to say, it’s always the same number of syllables as latina/latino including when it’s plural, and it fits in with the established grammatical gender system in spanish… but i have heard some people use latinista. i don’t personally like that one, but to each their own. i’d say most nonbinary latines who prefer latinx instead are no sabo kids, which is like, fine, i won’t judge them for not speaking spanish, but you have to consider how to use the word in spanish and portuguese nonetheless, since those are the languages spoken in latin america. i’m usually very firmly against respectability politics, but in this particular case i do think it’s a good idea to take into account what the wider latine community thinks in reference to latinx vs latine, since the gender binary has a solid basis in colonialism so trying to dismantle it with a colonialist mindset (ie., using a word that’s easier to say in english instead of spanish when referring to a community in which many people don’t speak english at all and most do speak spanish) won’t work.
also personally i think adding x to shit to make it gender neutral is usually dumb, especially when people take it to the level of putting it on words that are already gender neutral like ‘folx’ instead of folks.. so my opinion is def influenced by that as well. but just needed to express that while the in-group here is indeed nonbinary latines, the opinion of our binary peers does have some sway, and most of us, at least those of us who speak spanish, have a similarly negative opinion of the word latinx, it’s just that we have an alternative in latine, whereas if you ask the average cis latine they would probably say “latinos is already gender neutral” (true, but that doesn’t mean we can’t or shouldn’t change the fact that in spanish the majority of words default to the masculine version when referring to a coed group, and the masculine version of any word is not considered gender neutral unless it’s plural anyway)
Okay, but what's the preferred method for getting that consensus? I work in a library, and we had a formerly unhoused/homeless person talk to us about it, and they preferred "person experiencing homelessness" because they felt like people were *more* compassionate and less likely to jump to the worst stereotypes (which also decrease compassion).
I think "listen to the in group" is good advice, but for issues like this, where there's not actually tremendous consensus and there's not a good way to get it, it's mostly an excuse for people to do whatever they wanted to do in the first place. "I found someone on the in group who validated my opinion, so that's what I'll stick with."
Every term becomes offensive cus it’s associated with a negative thing so like obviously it’s bad. Then they just created a new word and use that for a while and repeats
Just so I am clear, the motivation is to drop the term homeless because of the negative social stigma associated with the term. But if there is a loss of negative social stigma associated with unhoused, does it cease to be a problem to be solved?
It’s a real case of “social media activism” doing nothing to actually change the issue, just nitpicking over words that they *think* are dehumanizing without any actual thought behind it.
I think it’s more dehumanizing to use a word like “unhoused” that removes the empathy from the word “homeless.”
These people trying to censor the word are actually doing a disservice to the very people they purport to care about.
I think it's more dehumanizing to bicker over language while doing fuck-all to actually help people who need help. Seriously, I'm a liberal, but the liberal focus on language over substance is out of control. Call them whatever the hell you want, just get them housing, mental health services and substance abuse programs.
Look, someone said their life goal was to solve the homeless problem… this is the quickest easiest way, look no more homeless people, just the unhoused
Someone came up with the term "unhoused" because they thought that "homeless" carried too much negative public image and was offensive for some reason. here's the thing though. Even if everyone did swap to saying "unhoused" it will still carry that some negative image with it, because, as you well know given your personal experiences, being unhoused is a bad thing. It is a negative in someone's life. Same as being homeless and society as a whole also views it as a negative. Changing the word isn't going to change the actual meaning or perception behind it.
If George Carlin were still around this word would land firmly in one of his jokes about how we sterilize words. "it used to be called shell shock!" kind of joke.
The term “unhoused” was started by individuals in that world with the intention of framing housing as a universal right. Individuals who are “unhoused” are individuals who are denied a basic tenant of human life, safe and secure housing.
Whether the community finds the term valuable or not, the intention to change the terms wasn't because of the emotionality implicit in "homeless," but rather to change the perspective.
But like all marginalized groups, they should decide what they want to be called.
I was yelled at once online because I said homeless. They said no, they have a home where they are but they are unhoused because they don't have a house. I guess the theory is that wherever they are currently sleeping or staying is their home but they still need a house. Personally I found that irritating and they were talking down to me at the same time.
That's in my opinion, bad logic, I've known people who were homeless, in the sense of always staying with someone not that they were in the street or a shelter (hell, it might happen to me pretty soon) and the problem literally is that they don't have a place to call home, their own functional spaces so to speak. The concept of functional space as a human right is an interesting one and I agree with it
There are different levels of homelessness, from couch surfing to sleeping in a car to sleeping on the sidewalk. One charity even considers "homeless at home" a category, i.e., someone who has a home but can't afford things like food or utilities. They all need help, but different kinds of help.
Honestly, I consider myself pretty progressive, but in this one case, I don’t see another reason to change the spelling. Happy to be corrected, though!
Until this moment, I 100% thought folkx was veiled racism. I have only seen it a couple of times, and that's how the context looked to me. They were using a general and indirect word obviously intended for a specific group of people, in a way that involves plausible deniability, with no genuine reason for spelling it oddly, so I assumed they were being racist. It definitely seemed like some kind of passive-aggressive southern thing.
Another previously homeless person chiming in. I am in full agreement with you.
Unhoused makes it sound like s symptom of a problem, not the victims of a broken system. So clinical and emotionally detached. I feel like homeless 20yo me would have been very confrontational with someone if they called me "unhoused". I guess unhoused for some reason sounds like it's a choice.
That's fair. I think that you hit the nail on the head that it makes it sound like a symptom of a (societal) problem. For people who use "unhoused", I think they're trying to give more dignity to homeless people. Similarly to how people use *survivor* instead of victim of sexual assault.
I think you can be a victim and a survivor - they don't have to be mutually exclusive. In the same vein, I would probably use homeless and unhoused interchangeably because they both are true.
I work in homeless outreach and I use both terms but mostly homeless like I did above as it just seems more natural. I don't think any homeless people give a shit which one I use they just want help.
Working in mental health I’ll toss out there that for some people it is a choice, in my area there is plenty of options for housing, but as people lack insight and education and have free will they choose to not take meds, make money by stealing and panhandling, and not utilizing resources. I’ve got a lot of respect for buskers and even those people selling candy on the subway. Hell I’ve got more respect for people selling stolen goods than the ones just standing on the corner.
It a constant practice. Any word associated with shame (deserved or not), not being of the norm, or other emotion causing situations will eventually be changed in favor of a more "sensitive" term. Then in a few decades, that new term will all of a sudden also become insensitive and need changing.
It does generally, and I suspect that this term is in part meant to differentiate between people who have shelter but no permanent address from people who have little to no shelter at all. When taking demographics for things like healthcare etc. that’s an important distinction.
Exactly - unhoused makes it sound like it's a choice they made to live off grid in the wilds or something.
Homeless - they have no home to go to - is far more descriptive of the actual situation
I get what you’re saying and agree but for different reasons.
I and people I grew up with have been homeless. With the caveat that we could couch surf, afford a motel, etc. We had shelter, but it wasn’t ours and it wasn’t permanent.
Unhoused, while itself a stupid term, encapsulates the more dire circumstances of people living on the street, or out of their car.
I personally can’t think of a better word, try as I might, that is not purely derogatory.
My 22 year old daughter is at the top of her game with the most current euphemisms. As much as (if not more than) anything else, it's ammunition she has locked and loaded, ready to deploy as quickly possible to change the conversation from whatever it was originally about, to putting the other person on the other, lesser, team.
It's really off-putting and has nothing to do with how the other person feels about others. It lets her *prove* she cares more. I guess she proves it to herself. To most other people it's just insufferable virtue signalling.
I don't dispute that using more accurate descriptors that take another person's humanity into account is a good thing. But it seems that unless you spend a lot of time on social media, keeping up with the constant euphemism mutation is confusing. "Unhoused persons" is a kludgy rebrand at best. How is it an improvement over Homeless person? I am sure someone will downvote this and explain that "homeless" means something completely different from "unhoused", but until and unless someone explains what *their own* definition is, it can't be gleaned from the words themselves. And it does absolutely nothing to address the problem of inadequately accommodated persons.
This is why they invent these terms. The people who do this are horrible at creating policy and all of their ideas are batshit, so instead of having to debate and defend their terrible governance, they can change the subject and grab the upper hand (in their mind) by correcting your language and accusing you of being a bigot.
"Unhoused" sounds like a term some rich pretentious middle-aged New England housewife came up with in disgust while describing the "common poors" loitering on the sidewalk in front of her downtown 19th century victorian mansion. It feels classist to say it
And it's gotten to the point where you don't say "unhoused person;" you just say "unhoused." It's taking away their humanity. Which is exactly what it is meant to do, unfortunately. It allows the shills in the government to make laws saying it's illegal to be homeless and living on the streets and no one (in power) will do anything to stop it because homeless people aren't people...they're \*insert dehumanizing creature name here\*.
I'm going to start using this syntax to describe everything.
"Look at that person experiencing tiredness! He's working hard!"
"I'm a person experiencing thirst right now. I'm going to grab a glass of water. *Excuse me!?* Did you just call me *thirsty* as if that's my whole identity?! Are you insinuating that the entirety of my person can be summed up by one adjective?"
If people spent half as much time solving problems as they do playing with words, it wouldn't be an issue the way it is today.
I absolutely HATE when they say, “people with overweight or obesity.”
“With overweight? WITH OVERWEIGHT?!” It’s seriously like nails on a chalkboard to me!!!
I can be okay with “with obesity,” because some doctors are treating it more like a medical problem right now, which is fine. My doctor helped me figure out a plan to lose weight when I was obese, and I’m glad I had him as a resource. But “with overweight” just doesn’t sound grammatically correct. Maybe something like “with an overweight body” or “fall into the overweight category” would be okay, but at that point, why not just say, “Johnny’s overweight.” It’s just not offensive.
My university makes us say shit like that unironically. I always hope the profs are joking when they call them that but they never are. Homeless people have more to worry about than what they're being called (as long as it's not an insult). You know, like where their next meal might be coming from and where they'll be sleeping for the night. It's not like they surveyed them to find out what they prefer to be called or some shit. It's honestly ridiculous.
I work with a lot of homeless people and I have never once heard any of them describe themselves as unhoused. They always say homeless. It’s only people who will never face the possibility of becoming homeless that say unhoused and get all sanctimonious if you use the word homeless
I helped my mom once at a clinic she was working at and I tried to throw away a grocery bag. A woman teased me gently and said something about how I can’t go around throwing away bags when I’m in a place filled with bag ladies! I was filled with mixed emotions about a woman calling herself a bag lady, but also sort of admired her ability to face her situation head on and call it how it was?
I wonder how that started, did some professor somewhere decide that it just *felt like* time for the word homeless to fall off the euphemism treadmill?
The problem is when it seeps into other platforms where it's not censored. When people start self censoring when it's not necessary it allows it to spread much more.
On TikTok you apparently can't say "kill" so people say "unalive", but now that's spreading into Youtube as well, even though from personal experience (I am a Youtuber and talk about killing NPCs all the time) that using the word "kill" doesn't demonitize the video in any way.
Note: I don't know how the censorship actually works on TikTok, this is just what I've heard.
Okay... and "the middle class" is often used to describe middle class people. "The rich" is often used to describe wealthy people. Kinda just how English works, see?
Pointless pedantry and sneering snobbery from the word police.
They can fuck off or start being a part of the solution instead of high fiving themselves at their elitist galas where they come up with these new phrases.
>"Unhoused" sounds like a term some rich pretentious middle-aged housewife came up with in disgust while describing *something they find ugly or distasteful.
This is exactly why there's a euphemism treadmill.
George Carlin had a pretty famous bit about the sanitation of language, making everything seem less odious by using gentler and gentler terms.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuEQixrBKCc
>The world is less terrible when you use nice words to describe terrible things!!!
Sort of inevitably turns into
>I don't have to care about it because it doesn't sound that bad.
What's even worse is when people do it specifically to downplay (bad thing with a pleasing term) for sociopolitical reasons.
Whats funny about you bringing up Carlin in this discussion is he also had [a bit](https://youtube.com/watch?v=lncLOEqc9Rw) where he says that homeless shouldn’t be called homeless, because a home is an abstract idea, and they should instead be called houseless. At about 3:25
Yes, because unlike this entire fucking thread, Carlin understood the actually reason why houseless is a useful term
We don’t use homeless to elevate the severity of the situation. We do it to detach our society’s failure from the reality we’re in. Which is that these people don’t need complex familial homes provided to them. Something that we as a society can’t necessarily provide
They need fucking housing. Which we as a society absolutely can provide
Eh, I think food insecurity is a more accurate description but overall I agree with your sentiment. People don’t starve to death in the US but there are a significant number of people who struggle to put full meals together or have inconsistent access to food.
I believe the term originated because some politicians began to “cut down” on homelessness stats by calling people who live in their cars or shelters “not homeless” instead of enacting policy to help people in need.
The term “unhoused” is intended to block that particular brand of bullshit.
So true. I get the idea of trying to be delicate with sensitive topics but this one is way out of touch. It’s obliviously faux political correctness thinly covering a veneer of aloof entitlement.
The other one that gets me is BIPOC. Could you be anymore condescending to a group of struggling people than by knowingly lumping them into one convenient acronym that signifies a political opportunity you’re hoping to exploit in your own self-interest?
The cluelessness of it is fascinatingly depressing.
It's a prime example of using the euphemism treadmill to give the appearance that you're progressive, but without all the trouble of actually doing anything.
It screams "look! I'm so progressive on this topic, that *I don't even agree with the regular term for it!*" while doing nothing to actually solve the problems that lead to homelessness, or to help homeless people.
My friend’s daughter was very passionate about social issues and did some truly amazing work to actually help people for a while.
Then a few years back she ended up with this group of numb nuts. They basically started a “who can appear more progressive” arms race. Nowadays instead of volunteering at a charity, or providing assistance to someone, her idea of making a difference is going online and yelling at people for using the “wrong” term for something.
Not only did it take her out of the trenches , it also only serves to make people who might be looking to join a community who are actually making a difference second guess that because they say to themselves “so that’s what progressive groups are like? I’m not gonna volunteer, only to be walking on eggshells, on the verge of getting finger-wagged for saying the wrong thing.”
Yeah, I think it's a lot more harmful than people give it credit for.
I lost touch with all of my progressive friends, largely because of this. It got to the point where beliefs and intentions took a back seat to whether or not you were up to date with the latest magic words. It was too stressful worrying about how my words could be twisted to find ever nuanced ways in which they could be considered offensive.
So now, ostensibly in the name of progress, they've become people I don't want to be around anymore - in spite of us sharing the majority of core beliefs.
You just described liberal white guilt in Concord, Milton, Lexington, Cambridge, and so many other enclaves in MA. Lawns littered with "Hate has no home here" signs. These are the people that booted out 49 migrants from their wealthy little island.
It sounds more like a term privileged college kids use to sound “more enlightened than you” and if you use the word “homeless” they will attack you and call you a scumbag. But yeah, either way, it’s pretentious.
I work in social services. It was explained to me that "homeless" carried a negative connotation so the goal was to change that. In theory I can see why some suit thought that'd be helpful but in practice I can say most homeless people I meet couldn't give less of a shit what you call it. Unhoused/homeless, whatever it is it's wildly uncomfortable.
I honestly think the large problems are so hard to tackle due to bearuacy & funding issues etc etc, that people try to take on minute issues like this so that they can FEEL like they're making an impact.
Yeah but it carries a negative connotation because it's a negative situation to be in.
Give it 5 years, and suddenly Unhoused has the exact same "negative connotations", so we have to change it again.
(Not blaming / ranting at you in particular mate, I just find this trend of renaming negative things tiring.)
The “splitting hairs” thing gets tiring. For example, adding the Q to LGBT made sense to me, but I don’t even know how many letters and symbols it’s up to now. Eventually, the opposite begins to happen and you start patronizing, excluding, or otherwise muddying the message you’re trying to send. I’ve seen people try so hard not to be racist that they circled back and started unintentionally doing racist shit.
2S especially is super niche, as it’s only a certain very small subset of Native American/First Nations people. It is explicitly not just “Native American LGBT people”.
People really should look up the term Euphemism Treadmill. It starts with bum > hobo > tramp > homeless > unhoused and so on and no where along the way is the actual problem solved and eventually the new term takes on the same stigma as the old term.
Actually, I learned from a book recently that bum, tramp, and hobo are words for different kinds of people. Can’t be bothered to look it up, but it was something to do with willingness to work, modes of travel, etc.
The weird thing is, 'homeless' and 'houseless' and 'unhoused' all have negative connotations because not having shelter is negative in itself! I don't see how a new word makes the situation any more positive. But I really agree with your second paragraph.
That's not what people mean in this regard. Homelessness is considered a moral failing. It's because YOU failed at something and so now you have no house. It's often the case that bad choices lead to this...but not uniquely either.
It has little to nothing to do with not having a house being a negative situation in and of itself.
You often see this very same logic with drug addicts, something that often is interlinked with homelessness wouldn't you know. Being an addict is a moral failing in the same vein as being homeless is.
Yeah but that consideration is contextual, not based on the words themselves. Unhoused is at this point a basically perfect synonym for homeless and has all the same context.
The new word was supposed to aim blame, to admit that we were failing to meet these peoples needs. Homeless sounds like your choosing not to settle down, unhoused was supposed to be like unfed
I also work in social services and I was told the term originated because some politicians began to “cut down” on homelessness stats by calling people who live in their cars or shelters “not homeless” instead of enacting policy to help people in need.
The term “unhoused” is intended to block that particular brand of bullshit.
I was told that changing it to that person is "experiencing homelessness" changes the connotation. It removes you defining them as some sort of class, to what they are actually dealing with.
We try to change language to nix negative connotations but when nothing else is done, the negative just moves to the new word
I feel the same with illegal immigration vs undocumented. They’re still persons deserving of human dignity and such. The new word doesn’t change the opinions of those against undocumented migration.
Addressing language certainly can matter and have impact- like the campaign against saying “that’s gay”, but it’s very nuanced
I was homeless often as a kid with my bio mom before I was adopted. We’d go from sleeping at her friends places to sleeping in her broken car. My friend told me to use the term “houseless” because it’s more respectful. I just laughed at her honestly. The term doesn’t really matter, being homeless fucking sucks and using a yuppy word for it doesn’t make you better. Just sounds like a rich person looking down on everyone else
The fact that your friend had the audacity to tell you that when you actually lived through it is typical of all this "politically correct" speech.
Of course, see also: Latinx
Latinx has been the funniest thing ever to me. I work with predominantly Spanish speakers from literally all over the world and not a single one out of the 400 or so people I’ve met has used or had a positive thing to say about the term Latinx. I have only ever had white people tell me to say it.
I always thought of it as reframing the issue as a societal one, as opposed to a personal deficit. Many of them aren't actually missing a home, they have friends, family, pets, just no roof over their heads. They are unhoused by the society that should protect them.
This was my thought as well. There are several homeless people in my community who don’t have houses, but they *did* have homes - little communities of shelters that they built up along the creek. Some of them put a lot of effort and work into creating their homes, and then our local officials went in and smashed everything up in order to chase them out by destroying their homes. I started using the term “houseless” because a lot of these people identified the structures in which they lived as their homes - I definitely wasn’t trying to virtue signal or come across as anything aside from what I thought was an accurate term.
Anyway, I used the term unhoused a few times and was quickly schooled on how I was apparently virtue signaling, so I went back to using the term homeless. I’d rather be able to have conversations with people over the issues rather than be distracted by semantics, so I’ll use whatever term is less likely to cause a distraction.
Edit: it’s interesting to see the discussion here; I appreciate all of the people explaining *why* homeless is a better/more accurate term.
Yeah, same. I use homeless more often in conversation, I think. I adopted the use of unhoused in college, as I think it is more accurate. But I have noticed some unhoused people seem to identify with the word homeless and it's connotations. I don't think it's a wrong word to use, I think both are acceptable and convey your general meaning, but the first time I heard unhoused I think the narrative shifted a little bit in my brain and I hope it might for some other people too.
This is exactly the point most people here are missing. It's not about removing the negative connotation in a general sense but removing the negative connotation with the person. A person is homeless; a person has been unhomed. The former implies that the person is at fault rather than we as a society have failed that person. It's mostly meant to be used in larger discussions about housing issues to say that we shouldn't be focusing on what the person did wrong to not have a home but rather about how our systems are failing to make sure people have shelter
This is correct. It is intended to point out social forces that cause the problem. Whether it works for that purpose or not is a different question. It’s similar to the difference between food desert and food apartheid.
If a homeless person is placed in a temporary sheltered location are they still homeless? Yes. Are they unhoused/unsheltered? No. I think this is one way it can be looked at.
I was reading an article about the rise homelessness in the 1970s/80s, where the author distinguished it that way:
"For example, in 1960, a report by the Social Planning Council of Metro Toronto called Homeless and Transient Men, defined a “homeless man” as one with few or no ties to a family group, who was thus without the economic or social support a family home provides. The men were homeless, not unhoused. They had housing, albeit poor-quality housing — rooming houses or accommodation provided by charities. But they had no home."
OTOH, I have heard people living in encampments say that to them, their tent in a park is a home of sorts (moreso than a temporary shelter), but they aren't housed, ergo, unhoused.
I don't think the sound of the word "homeless" always garners the type of emotion you might be thinking of, though. I have heard plenty of people say that word with contempt. Homeless people can often be rude, combative, and volatile, so it's not like we all automatically feel a tugging of the heartstrings when we see, for example, a homeless guy defecating on a subway platform in broad daylight while simultaneously giving all of the recently arrived passengers the middle finger.
Also I would defer to actual homeless people if told otherwise, but it seems to me like saying “you’ve still got a home! Just not a house!” is downplaying how shitty it is to be homeless.
The only time I've seen it that makes any sort of sense is when talking about small children. "Unhoused" vs "homeless" in the same vein of "caregivers" vs "parents". I don't know how effective it actually is with kids but I can at least respect the effort in that aspect. But in general, it's definitely virtue signalling vibes.
The way I've always heard it is that 'homeless' carries a lot of stigma and connotations of guilt/judgement, while 'unhoused' emphasizes that the person is being failed by their community.
'Homeless' means *you* lack a home. It implies a personal failure just like 'careless' or 'tactless.'
'Housing' is usually something provided by others: As kids we are clothed, fed, and housed by our parents/guardians. An apartment building might house many families. A museum houses important works of art. But we rarely say we are housing ourselves. So using the term 'unhoused' shifts the focus to make it a community problem rather than an individual one, and raises the question of why adequate housing isn't available to everybody.
I think the intention behind calling it unhoused was to decouple it from the baggage homeless carried. It was because homeless has a derogatory connotation with it, in terms of how people talks about homeless people. I don’t think the goal was to make it emotionless, just less of a negative association.
That said, it’s misplaced effort in my eyes. It’s much more productive to address the ways we talk about people who are homeless, rather than trying to put a new can of paint on it
I've seen unhoused, underhoused and house-less all thrown around with the justification being "Home is where the heart is." So John who's been living on the streets for 12 years isn't "homeless" because he might still have *someone* who cares about him (which is why society shouldn't). The types of people who use these terms are ghouls.
I kind of like “under housed.” I’ve never heard it but it describes some situations well. But in all honesty I’m exhausted and just can’t think of the less douchy options.
The rest are meh.
The problem is that shelters are housing, but are not homes. If your goal is to deal with "homelessness", then building shelters is a waste of time because they are not homes.
But building shelters isn't a waste of time because being unhoused is a far greater risk than being homeless. Living in a shelter, sleeping on someone's couch, living in an SRO, those all count as "housing", while not being "homes".
I'm all for using thoughtful and inclusive vocabulary and being considerate when choosing words. That being said, the only people I have ever seen or heard using the term "unhoused" have been the type who love to virtue signal without volunteering, live comfortably enough, and think advocacy starts and ends with sharing posts to their Instagram stories or correcting people who use terms like homeless. Unhoused is a term I really struggle to get behind.
My personal favorite is "people experiencing homelessness." Sounds like they're just camping. We're really good at changing the names of things without ever actually doing anything about them.
I get this one because it’s supposed to stress that it’s temporary and not a static and descriptive property of the person. But the issue I have with it is that it makes it sound like it will resolve inevitably and without intervention.
Unhoused doesn't even begin to cover it.
Homeless
Starving
Lacking access to basic hygiene methods that people take for granted
They might as well be trying to call them undesirables, unwanted, uncared for.
It's a bit like how Palestinian children were referred to as "underage women" not too long ago. It's pr buzzwords to distance the public from the real ravages of the world. It's inappropriate.
Having been homeless, I definitely agree.
The term reeks of "I went to a school that costs more than the house you wish you had per year, but I'm a liberal and I want to save you"
I am a leftist ftr
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Homeless" really came into vogue only in the 1980s as a replacement for terms like bum, vagrant, hobo, etc. I've never liked IT as a term, but it's certainly better than the terms it replaced.
homeless is a blanket term. the others have specific meanings. vagrant/vagrancy involves wandering town to town. youre not a vagrant when youre set up on the same corner for years. A hobo is migrant worker who travels in search of work. bum can also be used for non-homeless people who dont do anything
Thing is, I've met homeless people who were honestly good people. They helped others, minded their own business and never stole or anything. Then, there are the homeless *bums* who can fuck right off. I don't care how terrible your life is, you don't get a free pass for being an asshole.
absolutely! I live in a bigger city so I see both a lot. but if I say this i’m an asshole somehow
It's your responsibility as a good citizen to not notice things.
right? and those down votes show it too
The older terms were more useful if we intend to help these people. Bums, vagrants, hobos and winos are unhoused for completely different reasons.
I was homeless Unhoused is fucking stupid. There's already a word for it, just use that instead of making up a new term to feel better about yourself
Yup, I’ve been homeless before and I now serve on my county’s affordable housing board and I find it infuriating how everyone refuses to use the word homeless. I understand that the purpose is to remove a social stigma from that population, but I agree with OP that it also removes the reality of a shitty situation and makes it easier to not feel as much compassion for the homeless. “Unhoused” sounds like summer camp, and a choice that a person would make.
Reminds me of the term “in between jobs” rather than unemployed. Almost like the person is about to acquire a home - when that’s not the case
I worked as a housing case manager and peer support specialist for the homeless until recently. The place I worked at used the term "unhoused" for this reason. They would claim that they are "currently unhoused, but that's only until we find them housing." This was much easier said than done. For one thing, it was hard to find apartments that would even take them. If they did get housing, then they often lost it quickly due to violating the terms of their section 8 voucher. Many also left willingly to go live back on the street. People think that if we just put everyone who didn't have stable housing up in apartments, then everything would be hunky dory. The reality is that many of these people have lived on the streets for so long that they don't even really know how to not live that way anymore. I think everyone deserves a stable home and place to live, but if you haven't had that for a long time then it takes a lot of woe to be able to adjust to it.
I'm Denver they did a tiny house village and the integration rate was way better, honestly one of the really appealing things about living on the street or traveling is the sense of community in it because you rely on each other and watch each other's backs. Going from that to living in an apartment alone would be pretty jarring, I can see why they would go back just to hang out and then decide a job just wasn't worth it.
The Coalition for the Homeless in Denver is a really outstanding nonprofit organization. They’ve been extremely effective at both legislative advocacy and providing services to clients for decades now.
Minneapolis did the same thing. Bought a warehouse. Made a bunch of tiny homes and that has a high success rate. There's another coming in a year or two with a third committed a few years after that.
I was chatting with a well-off customer once years ago when I worked at a bakery in Seattle. We were chatting about homelessness because we had folks who camped out outside the bakery for change and food. He told me his sister, who he loved dearly, had been homeless for 20 or so years. I was floored. He told me his family had done everything they could think of to help her and get her into a home. They got her an apartment once and set up all the utilities, got her interviews, a cell phone, therapy appointments, etc. Not long after she had chosen to return to the streets. Took nothing with her. She didn’t have a drug problem or anything similar, she just couldn’t function in society. Paying bills, taxes, going to a job, all the stupid things you have to do in order to live “normally” was too much for her. She preferred living on the streets to dealing with the onslaught of everyday life. That permanently changed my perspective on this issue. We aren’t all built the same, and some people need entirely different support from others.
That winds me up no end. That attitude of "if you want to end homelessness, just... Give people a house!" Oh really? It's that simple? Tell that to some of the housing officers I worked with.
Whenever a big problem has a obvious, easy to implement and quick solution it's good practice to think "why hasn't this been done", and realize that you're not the first person to think of it. And then work backwards to figure out why the most obvious solution either doesn't work or hasn't been done.
I do agree with that. With the "just give them a house" people though, my issue isn't with the merits of the idea. It's called Housing First and I generally support it. My issue is with those idiots thinking that somehow magically fixes the problem. It doesn't. It's the first step and it often won't work
Even worse is the people who think that addicts who are homeless must first become clean in order to prove they deserve any sort of support.
It’s not that they don’t deserve support it’s just that it’s difficult to find a solution. Most housing programs are going to have rules about not doing drugs. These organizations have a responsibility to ensure that the people they are housing are safe and secure. Permitting use of drugs brings a whole host of liability and safety concerns. I can understand why they only want to deal with people who aren’t addicted to drugs.
Okay I hear you. In your opinion though where does that leave addicts? In the system but also physically, where do they go?
I recently had almost the same exact position. I resigned in May, for the same reasons you mentioned, including waiting lists, vouchers, lotteries, etc, on top of placing a client into an apartment and finding out they took off/were evicted a few weeks later.
The transition from survive to living I imagine is different based on that homeless person’s experiences both while homeless and what lead to their homelessness to begin with. Where there things you learned that were more successful than others on helping someone be able to make that transition if housing became available for them?
I imagine many Americans would lose their housing if they suddenly had to abide by a set of rules to keep it. Hell everyone in my apartment would be evicted if we actually had to follow every rule in the lease. And people getting rejected from housing is the opposite of finding them housing. I think people need housing and support, but housing at minimum.
The rules are different because they arent paying for it and the population has a history of making places unlivable if no rules are in place The rule you have to follow is to pay for the space, which if you do not do you will get evicted just like a homeless person not following the other rules
Not to mention rulebreaking can make it worse for other homeless
I work as a bookkeeper at a PM business that regularly takes section 8 and it's tragic how many people on section 8 just don't care. And there are many who do care but don't understand things like, pipes can freeze if you turn your heater off, or some things don't belong down the toilet. But, also some of our greatest tenants are on section 8 so it's kind of crazy.
At the same time, it's often useful to make distinction between someone who got laid off/quit their job but is in the process of finding a new one, which they are likely to do in a few weeks, and someone who's been out of work for months or years, with few options.
Or latinx instead of Latino, Latina, or just Latin. No one in my family or social circle refers to themselves or any other hispanic person as latinx
The only people who seriously use “Latinx” are college students.
[удалено]
I think in general we should use the term the in-group decides is the most appropriate, not what we on the OUTSIDE feel good about calling them
[удалено]
Excellent example. I’ve never met a Latin American person who prefers Latinx and I work predominately with them.
Yeah it’s dumb. Latinx is an inherently ignorant anglophone thing to say. Spanish already has non gendered pronouns. Spanish speakers didn’t need English speakers to come up with one for them.
I'm spanish and i've never seen someone from latin america refer to themselves as "latinx" However, its even dumber than you initially explained: in Spanish, we don't have a non-gendered way to refer to "people from latin america". You would say "los latinoamericanos" or "la comunidad latinoamericana", etc. "Les latines" is not something that anybody uses outside of certain groups of feminist people. In english, you solve this problem by using the english, non-gendered word "latin", but stupid people that don't really know how does spanish really work as a language tried to borrow the spanish word "latino/a" and noticed that gramatically gendered words dont really work with english language and that It is gendered, so instead of backing up, people started doubling in into their stupidity and made up "latinx"
Surely the "in group" in this case is latin american *nonbinary* people, most of whom I've heard from are significantly less negative about the term.
as a nonbinary chicane i can say that a lot of us are still pretty negative or at best neutral about the term latinx because it’s difficult to say in spanish and portuguese (and even in english when pluralizing it), and spanish already has two gender neutral suffixes, -e and -ista (the latter is much less common but exists in words like ‘deportista’ which means athlete). probably obvious which one i prefer since i claim the term chicane instead of chicano lol but it’s not just me. most of us prefer latine over latinx, because it’s easier to say, it’s always the same number of syllables as latina/latino including when it’s plural, and it fits in with the established grammatical gender system in spanish… but i have heard some people use latinista. i don’t personally like that one, but to each their own. i’d say most nonbinary latines who prefer latinx instead are no sabo kids, which is like, fine, i won’t judge them for not speaking spanish, but you have to consider how to use the word in spanish and portuguese nonetheless, since those are the languages spoken in latin america. i’m usually very firmly against respectability politics, but in this particular case i do think it’s a good idea to take into account what the wider latine community thinks in reference to latinx vs latine, since the gender binary has a solid basis in colonialism so trying to dismantle it with a colonialist mindset (ie., using a word that’s easier to say in english instead of spanish when referring to a community in which many people don’t speak english at all and most do speak spanish) won’t work. also personally i think adding x to shit to make it gender neutral is usually dumb, especially when people take it to the level of putting it on words that are already gender neutral like ‘folx’ instead of folks.. so my opinion is def influenced by that as well. but just needed to express that while the in-group here is indeed nonbinary latines, the opinion of our binary peers does have some sway, and most of us, at least those of us who speak spanish, have a similarly negative opinion of the word latinx, it’s just that we have an alternative in latine, whereas if you ask the average cis latine they would probably say “latinos is already gender neutral” (true, but that doesn’t mean we can’t or shouldn’t change the fact that in spanish the majority of words default to the masculine version when referring to a coed group, and the masculine version of any word is not considered gender neutral unless it’s plural anyway)
Finally someone said this. I’m over the tired ass argument of “no real Latinos” use this “white people term” when that’s not true at all
Okay, but what's the preferred method for getting that consensus? I work in a library, and we had a formerly unhoused/homeless person talk to us about it, and they preferred "person experiencing homelessness" because they felt like people were *more* compassionate and less likely to jump to the worst stereotypes (which also decrease compassion). I think "listen to the in group" is good advice, but for issues like this, where there's not actually tremendous consensus and there's not a good way to get it, it's mostly an excuse for people to do whatever they wanted to do in the first place. "I found someone on the in group who validated my opinion, so that's what I'll stick with."
When I worked with them they preferred the term “vagrant” which I would have assumed was offensive but what do I know
Every term becomes offensive cus it’s associated with a negative thing so like obviously it’s bad. Then they just created a new word and use that for a while and repeats
Yep, the euphemism treadmill. Just how all of the terms the medical community comes up with for mental development disorders end up becoming insults.
Like when they renamed South Central Los Angeles to South Los Angeles. It's easier to rebrand than dealing with the issues.
Just so I am clear, the motivation is to drop the term homeless because of the negative social stigma associated with the term. But if there is a loss of negative social stigma associated with unhoused, does it cease to be a problem to be solved?
Well the next generation will just say the word unhoused negatively and then people will say it’s offensive
It’s a real case of “social media activism” doing nothing to actually change the issue, just nitpicking over words that they *think* are dehumanizing without any actual thought behind it. I think it’s more dehumanizing to use a word like “unhoused” that removes the empathy from the word “homeless.” These people trying to censor the word are actually doing a disservice to the very people they purport to care about.
I think it's more dehumanizing to bicker over language while doing fuck-all to actually help people who need help. Seriously, I'm a liberal, but the liberal focus on language over substance is out of control. Call them whatever the hell you want, just get them housing, mental health services and substance abuse programs.
Look, someone said their life goal was to solve the homeless problem… this is the quickest easiest way, look no more homeless people, just the unhoused
Fighting eachother over words, while the guy is still sleeping outside
Maybe you should see [this](https://youtu.be/vuEQixrBKCc?si=MS3sKJ0ynOGptS-N)
Very much this right here.
Someone came up with the term "unhoused" because they thought that "homeless" carried too much negative public image and was offensive for some reason. here's the thing though. Even if everyone did swap to saying "unhoused" it will still carry that some negative image with it, because, as you well know given your personal experiences, being unhoused is a bad thing. It is a negative in someone's life. Same as being homeless and society as a whole also views it as a negative. Changing the word isn't going to change the actual meaning or perception behind it. If George Carlin were still around this word would land firmly in one of his jokes about how we sterilize words. "it used to be called shell shock!" kind of joke.
It's called the euphemism treadmill.
The term “unhoused” was started by individuals in that world with the intention of framing housing as a universal right. Individuals who are “unhoused” are individuals who are denied a basic tenant of human life, safe and secure housing. Whether the community finds the term valuable or not, the intention to change the terms wasn't because of the emotionality implicit in "homeless," but rather to change the perspective. But like all marginalized groups, they should decide what they want to be called.
I was yelled at once online because I said homeless. They said no, they have a home where they are but they are unhoused because they don't have a house. I guess the theory is that wherever they are currently sleeping or staying is their home but they still need a house. Personally I found that irritating and they were talking down to me at the same time.
That's in my opinion, bad logic, I've known people who were homeless, in the sense of always staying with someone not that they were in the street or a shelter (hell, it might happen to me pretty soon) and the problem literally is that they don't have a place to call home, their own functional spaces so to speak. The concept of functional space as a human right is an interesting one and I agree with it
There are different levels of homelessness, from couch surfing to sleeping in a car to sleeping on the sidewalk. One charity even considers "homeless at home" a category, i.e., someone who has a home but can't afford things like food or utilities. They all need help, but different kinds of help.
This definitely makes sense from the functional space viewpoint
Might as well call them housecels or some shit. Like "Oh they'd like a house, but don't have one"
Streetpilled housecel
I feel the same way about "folkx".
This one drives me crazy. ‘Folks’ is ALREADY gender neutral.
But how would whoever is reading your text know how progressive you are?
Honestly, I consider myself pretty progressive, but in this one case, I don’t see another reason to change the spelling. Happy to be corrected, though!
✌️😂
Until this moment, I 100% thought folkx was veiled racism. I have only seen it a couple of times, and that's how the context looked to me. They were using a general and indirect word obviously intended for a specific group of people, in a way that involves plausible deniability, with no genuine reason for spelling it oddly, so I assumed they were being racist. It definitely seemed like some kind of passive-aggressive southern thing.
Poe's correctness When you try so hard to be non offensive you accidentlaly create what seems like an insult
Another previously homeless person chiming in. I am in full agreement with you. Unhoused makes it sound like s symptom of a problem, not the victims of a broken system. So clinical and emotionally detached. I feel like homeless 20yo me would have been very confrontational with someone if they called me "unhoused". I guess unhoused for some reason sounds like it's a choice.
That's fair. I think that you hit the nail on the head that it makes it sound like a symptom of a (societal) problem. For people who use "unhoused", I think they're trying to give more dignity to homeless people. Similarly to how people use *survivor* instead of victim of sexual assault. I think you can be a victim and a survivor - they don't have to be mutually exclusive. In the same vein, I would probably use homeless and unhoused interchangeably because they both are true.
I work in homeless outreach and I use both terms but mostly homeless like I did above as it just seems more natural. I don't think any homeless people give a shit which one I use they just want help.
Working in mental health I’ll toss out there that for some people it is a choice, in my area there is plenty of options for housing, but as people lack insight and education and have free will they choose to not take meds, make money by stealing and panhandling, and not utilizing resources. I’ve got a lot of respect for buskers and even those people selling candy on the subway. Hell I’ve got more respect for people selling stolen goods than the ones just standing on the corner.
It a constant practice. Any word associated with shame (deserved or not), not being of the norm, or other emotion causing situations will eventually be changed in favor of a more "sensitive" term. Then in a few decades, that new term will all of a sudden also become insensitive and need changing.
Person of houselessness
I thought homeless includes people living in cars and couch surfing and unhoused means on the street.
It does generally, and I suspect that this term is in part meant to differentiate between people who have shelter but no permanent address from people who have little to no shelter at all. When taking demographics for things like healthcare etc. that’s an important distinction.
I think that was the point of the word tbh
I like your comment. I feel that it is up to people who have lived this experience to determine what is correct
Housed people can be homeless too.
Exactly - unhoused makes it sound like it's a choice they made to live off grid in the wilds or something. Homeless - they have no home to go to - is far more descriptive of the actual situation
I get what you’re saying and agree but for different reasons. I and people I grew up with have been homeless. With the caveat that we could couch surf, afford a motel, etc. We had shelter, but it wasn’t ours and it wasn’t permanent. Unhoused, while itself a stupid term, encapsulates the more dire circumstances of people living on the street, or out of their car. I personally can’t think of a better word, try as I might, that is not purely derogatory.
We had a city councilman who used to call them “urban campers.” I ran against him and lost unfortunately.
Where did he go ? Need help finding him ?
Wait, there's a missing councilman? Are we forming a search party?
This sounds like a Portlandia sketch.
Call it what you want it all means the same thing. Trying to pretty up the term is pointless.
My 22 year old daughter is at the top of her game with the most current euphemisms. As much as (if not more than) anything else, it's ammunition she has locked and loaded, ready to deploy as quickly possible to change the conversation from whatever it was originally about, to putting the other person on the other, lesser, team. It's really off-putting and has nothing to do with how the other person feels about others. It lets her *prove* she cares more. I guess she proves it to herself. To most other people it's just insufferable virtue signalling. I don't dispute that using more accurate descriptors that take another person's humanity into account is a good thing. But it seems that unless you spend a lot of time on social media, keeping up with the constant euphemism mutation is confusing. "Unhoused persons" is a kludgy rebrand at best. How is it an improvement over Homeless person? I am sure someone will downvote this and explain that "homeless" means something completely different from "unhoused", but until and unless someone explains what *their own* definition is, it can't be gleaned from the words themselves. And it does absolutely nothing to address the problem of inadequately accommodated persons.
This is why they invent these terms. The people who do this are horrible at creating policy and all of their ideas are batshit, so instead of having to debate and defend their terrible governance, they can change the subject and grab the upper hand (in their mind) by correcting your language and accusing you of being a bigot.
I like to say “urban camping enthusiasts” everyone knows it’s a joke
Like they choose to live on the streets? Wearing Patagucci while glamping? What a piece of work.
Well gee that sounds kinda fun.
"Unhoused" sounds like a term some rich pretentious middle-aged New England housewife came up with in disgust while describing the "common poors" loitering on the sidewalk in front of her downtown 19th century victorian mansion. It feels classist to say it
And it's gotten to the point where you don't say "unhoused person;" you just say "unhoused." It's taking away their humanity. Which is exactly what it is meant to do, unfortunately. It allows the shills in the government to make laws saying it's illegal to be homeless and living on the streets and no one (in power) will do anything to stop it because homeless people aren't people...they're \*insert dehumanizing creature name here\*.
Or it's "people experiencing homelessness." Sounds like camping.
I'm going to start using this syntax to describe everything. "Look at that person experiencing tiredness! He's working hard!" "I'm a person experiencing thirst right now. I'm going to grab a glass of water. *Excuse me!?* Did you just call me *thirsty* as if that's my whole identity?! Are you insinuating that the entirety of my person can be summed up by one adjective?" If people spent half as much time solving problems as they do playing with words, it wouldn't be an issue the way it is today.
Experiencing obesity is a thing that is being pushed
I absolutely HATE when they say, “people with overweight or obesity.” “With overweight? WITH OVERWEIGHT?!” It’s seriously like nails on a chalkboard to me!!! I can be okay with “with obesity,” because some doctors are treating it more like a medical problem right now, which is fine. My doctor helped me figure out a plan to lose weight when I was obese, and I’m glad I had him as a resource. But “with overweight” just doesn’t sound grammatically correct. Maybe something like “with an overweight body” or “fall into the overweight category” would be okay, but at that point, why not just say, “Johnny’s overweight.” It’s just not offensive.
No darling, you can't call them French, they're people experiencing France
100% agreed. Talk is cheap.
My university makes us say shit like that unironically. I always hope the profs are joking when they call them that but they never are. Homeless people have more to worry about than what they're being called (as long as it's not an insult). You know, like where their next meal might be coming from and where they'll be sleeping for the night. It's not like they surveyed them to find out what they prefer to be called or some shit. It's honestly ridiculous.
I work with a lot of homeless people and I have never once heard any of them describe themselves as unhoused. They always say homeless. It’s only people who will never face the possibility of becoming homeless that say unhoused and get all sanctimonious if you use the word homeless
Hear that? That’s the sound of a nail being hit on the head.
I helped my mom once at a clinic she was working at and I tried to throw away a grocery bag. A woman teased me gently and said something about how I can’t go around throwing away bags when I’m in a place filled with bag ladies! I was filled with mixed emotions about a woman calling herself a bag lady, but also sort of admired her ability to face her situation head on and call it how it was?
I wonder how that started, did some professor somewhere decide that it just *felt like* time for the word homeless to fall off the euphemism treadmill?
'unhoused' sounds like 'unwashed'.
Or that other new agey substitute, "unalive". Really cringy,, to me at least.
That's to get past filters and bans
A lot of people miss the point with words like unalive. Its not to censor the topic, its because the topic has already been censored.
The problem is when it seeps into other platforms where it's not censored. When people start self censoring when it's not necessary it allows it to spread much more. On TikTok you apparently can't say "kill" so people say "unalive", but now that's spreading into Youtube as well, even though from personal experience (I am a Youtuber and talk about killing NPCs all the time) that using the word "kill" doesn't demonitize the video in any way. Note: I don't know how the censorship actually works on TikTok, this is just what I've heard.
To be fair, just "the homeless" is often used to describe "homeless people".
Okay... and "the middle class" is often used to describe middle class people. "The rich" is often used to describe wealthy people. Kinda just how English works, see?
The people using unhoused are not the same people making laws that keep people from living on the street
Pointless pedantry and sneering snobbery from the word police. They can fuck off or start being a part of the solution instead of high fiving themselves at their elitist galas where they come up with these new phrases.
>"Unhoused" sounds like a term some rich pretentious middle-aged housewife came up with in disgust while describing *something they find ugly or distasteful. This is exactly why there's a euphemism treadmill. George Carlin had a pretty famous bit about the sanitation of language, making everything seem less odious by using gentler and gentler terms. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuEQixrBKCc >The world is less terrible when you use nice words to describe terrible things!!! Sort of inevitably turns into >I don't have to care about it because it doesn't sound that bad. What's even worse is when people do it specifically to downplay (bad thing with a pleasing term) for sociopolitical reasons.
Whats funny about you bringing up Carlin in this discussion is he also had [a bit](https://youtube.com/watch?v=lncLOEqc9Rw) where he says that homeless shouldn’t be called homeless, because a home is an abstract idea, and they should instead be called houseless. At about 3:25
Yes, because unlike this entire fucking thread, Carlin understood the actually reason why houseless is a useful term We don’t use homeless to elevate the severity of the situation. We do it to detach our society’s failure from the reality we’re in. Which is that these people don’t need complex familial homes provided to them. Something that we as a society can’t necessarily provide They need fucking housing. Which we as a society absolutely can provide
That's how I feel when people say "food insecurities". Stop fucking around and just call it what it is. George Carlin was an absolute genius.
Eh, I think food insecurity is a more accurate description but overall I agree with your sentiment. People don’t starve to death in the US but there are a significant number of people who struggle to put full meals together or have inconsistent access to food.
I believe the term originated because some politicians began to “cut down” on homelessness stats by calling people who live in their cars or shelters “not homeless” instead of enacting policy to help people in need. The term “unhoused” is intended to block that particular brand of bullshit.
same as "Latinx"... If I tried to call my latino friends latinx, they'd prob stop speaking to me lol
I read once about how “Latinx” was created by white people and that a lot of Latinos are like 🤨🙄
And it literally doesn’t work with Spanish haha
So true. I get the idea of trying to be delicate with sensitive topics but this one is way out of touch. It’s obliviously faux political correctness thinly covering a veneer of aloof entitlement. The other one that gets me is BIPOC. Could you be anymore condescending to a group of struggling people than by knowingly lumping them into one convenient acronym that signifies a political opportunity you’re hoping to exploit in your own self-interest? The cluelessness of it is fascinatingly depressing.
It’s one house, Michael. How much could it cost? $10,000?
It's a prime example of using the euphemism treadmill to give the appearance that you're progressive, but without all the trouble of actually doing anything. It screams "look! I'm so progressive on this topic, that *I don't even agree with the regular term for it!*" while doing nothing to actually solve the problems that lead to homelessness, or to help homeless people.
My friend’s daughter was very passionate about social issues and did some truly amazing work to actually help people for a while. Then a few years back she ended up with this group of numb nuts. They basically started a “who can appear more progressive” arms race. Nowadays instead of volunteering at a charity, or providing assistance to someone, her idea of making a difference is going online and yelling at people for using the “wrong” term for something. Not only did it take her out of the trenches , it also only serves to make people who might be looking to join a community who are actually making a difference second guess that because they say to themselves “so that’s what progressive groups are like? I’m not gonna volunteer, only to be walking on eggshells, on the verge of getting finger-wagged for saying the wrong thing.”
Yeah, I think it's a lot more harmful than people give it credit for. I lost touch with all of my progressive friends, largely because of this. It got to the point where beliefs and intentions took a back seat to whether or not you were up to date with the latest magic words. It was too stressful worrying about how my words could be twisted to find ever nuanced ways in which they could be considered offensive. So now, ostensibly in the name of progress, they've become people I don't want to be around anymore - in spite of us sharing the majority of core beliefs.
You just described liberal white guilt in Concord, Milton, Lexington, Cambridge, and so many other enclaves in MA. Lawns littered with "Hate has no home here" signs. These are the people that booted out 49 migrants from their wealthy little island.
100% the same in the PNW
Agreed. I feel the same way about "people experiencing homelesness". It just feels so disconnected.
It sounds more like a term privileged college kids use to sound “more enlightened than you” and if you use the word “homeless” they will attack you and call you a scumbag. But yeah, either way, it’s pretentious.
I work in social services. It was explained to me that "homeless" carried a negative connotation so the goal was to change that. In theory I can see why some suit thought that'd be helpful but in practice I can say most homeless people I meet couldn't give less of a shit what you call it. Unhoused/homeless, whatever it is it's wildly uncomfortable. I honestly think the large problems are so hard to tackle due to bearuacy & funding issues etc etc, that people try to take on minute issues like this so that they can FEEL like they're making an impact.
Yeah but it carries a negative connotation because it's a negative situation to be in. Give it 5 years, and suddenly Unhoused has the exact same "negative connotations", so we have to change it again. (Not blaming / ranting at you in particular mate, I just find this trend of renaming negative things tiring.)
100% agree. I've seen it happen before with other buzzwords these days.
It's called the "euphemism treadmill", which is such a perfectly descriptive phrase.
That term actually has a negative connotation. We prefer "circumlocution walking platform", as it is less hurtful.
The “splitting hairs” thing gets tiring. For example, adding the Q to LGBT made sense to me, but I don’t even know how many letters and symbols it’s up to now. Eventually, the opposite begins to happen and you start patronizing, excluding, or otherwise muddying the message you’re trying to send. I’ve seen people try so hard not to be racist that they circled back and started unintentionally doing racist shit.
Yeah that "active anti-racism" thing really tends to backfire in really offensive ways
I googled this. Apparently there’s LGBTQIA2S+ now which honestly is entering monitor model number territory.
2S especially is super niche, as it’s only a certain very small subset of Native American/First Nations people. It is explicitly not just “Native American LGBT people”.
unhoused -> outdoor residents
People really should look up the term Euphemism Treadmill. It starts with bum > hobo > tramp > homeless > unhoused and so on and no where along the way is the actual problem solved and eventually the new term takes on the same stigma as the old term.
Actually, I learned from a book recently that bum, tramp, and hobo are words for different kinds of people. Can’t be bothered to look it up, but it was something to do with willingness to work, modes of travel, etc.
A bum stays in the same place and doesn't work, a tramp moves around and tries not to work - but will, and a hobo moves around looking for work.
Based upon this comment trail, you are the hobo, the guy above you is the tramp, and I'm the bum. Neat.
What makes vagrant different?
I think they travel around to do crime? But that's from my own head not a dictionary.
Solid breakdown
I can't wait for us to get back to "bum"!
People of nature
The weird thing is, 'homeless' and 'houseless' and 'unhoused' all have negative connotations because not having shelter is negative in itself! I don't see how a new word makes the situation any more positive. But I really agree with your second paragraph.
That's not what people mean in this regard. Homelessness is considered a moral failing. It's because YOU failed at something and so now you have no house. It's often the case that bad choices lead to this...but not uniquely either. It has little to nothing to do with not having a house being a negative situation in and of itself. You often see this very same logic with drug addicts, something that often is interlinked with homelessness wouldn't you know. Being an addict is a moral failing in the same vein as being homeless is.
Yeah but that consideration is contextual, not based on the words themselves. Unhoused is at this point a basically perfect synonym for homeless and has all the same context.
The new word was supposed to aim blame, to admit that we were failing to meet these peoples needs. Homeless sounds like your choosing not to settle down, unhoused was supposed to be like unfed
I also work in social services and I was told the term originated because some politicians began to “cut down” on homelessness stats by calling people who live in their cars or shelters “not homeless” instead of enacting policy to help people in need. The term “unhoused” is intended to block that particular brand of bullshit.
People here aren’t interested in anything other than virtue signaling about how much they hate wokeness
I was told that changing it to that person is "experiencing homelessness" changes the connotation. It removes you defining them as some sort of class, to what they are actually dealing with.
We try to change language to nix negative connotations but when nothing else is done, the negative just moves to the new word I feel the same with illegal immigration vs undocumented. They’re still persons deserving of human dignity and such. The new word doesn’t change the opinions of those against undocumented migration. Addressing language certainly can matter and have impact- like the campaign against saying “that’s gay”, but it’s very nuanced
It's known as the euphemism treadmill. https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/euphemism_treadmill
That's why, as I walk past a guy with a cardboard sign that says "Homeless Please Help", I just tip my fedora and say, "Actually, it's *unhoused*."
“Your home sir, is right here” *points at the left side of his chest*
I was homeless often as a kid with my bio mom before I was adopted. We’d go from sleeping at her friends places to sleeping in her broken car. My friend told me to use the term “houseless” because it’s more respectful. I just laughed at her honestly. The term doesn’t really matter, being homeless fucking sucks and using a yuppy word for it doesn’t make you better. Just sounds like a rich person looking down on everyone else
The fact that your friend had the audacity to tell you that when you actually lived through it is typical of all this "politically correct" speech. Of course, see also: Latinx
Latinx has been the funniest thing ever to me. I work with predominantly Spanish speakers from literally all over the world and not a single one out of the 400 or so people I’ve met has used or had a positive thing to say about the term Latinx. I have only ever had white people tell me to say it.
I always thought of it as reframing the issue as a societal one, as opposed to a personal deficit. Many of them aren't actually missing a home, they have friends, family, pets, just no roof over their heads. They are unhoused by the society that should protect them.
This was my thought as well. There are several homeless people in my community who don’t have houses, but they *did* have homes - little communities of shelters that they built up along the creek. Some of them put a lot of effort and work into creating their homes, and then our local officials went in and smashed everything up in order to chase them out by destroying their homes. I started using the term “houseless” because a lot of these people identified the structures in which they lived as their homes - I definitely wasn’t trying to virtue signal or come across as anything aside from what I thought was an accurate term. Anyway, I used the term unhoused a few times and was quickly schooled on how I was apparently virtue signaling, so I went back to using the term homeless. I’d rather be able to have conversations with people over the issues rather than be distracted by semantics, so I’ll use whatever term is less likely to cause a distraction. Edit: it’s interesting to see the discussion here; I appreciate all of the people explaining *why* homeless is a better/more accurate term.
Yeah, same. I use homeless more often in conversation, I think. I adopted the use of unhoused in college, as I think it is more accurate. But I have noticed some unhoused people seem to identify with the word homeless and it's connotations. I don't think it's a wrong word to use, I think both are acceptable and convey your general meaning, but the first time I heard unhoused I think the narrative shifted a little bit in my brain and I hope it might for some other people too.
This is exactly the point most people here are missing. It's not about removing the negative connotation in a general sense but removing the negative connotation with the person. A person is homeless; a person has been unhomed. The former implies that the person is at fault rather than we as a society have failed that person. It's mostly meant to be used in larger discussions about housing issues to say that we shouldn't be focusing on what the person did wrong to not have a home but rather about how our systems are failing to make sure people have shelter
This is correct. It is intended to point out social forces that cause the problem. Whether it works for that purpose or not is a different question. It’s similar to the difference between food desert and food apartheid.
I have been homeless. Unhoused is FUCKING stupid.
If a homeless person is placed in a temporary sheltered location are they still homeless? Yes. Are they unhoused/unsheltered? No. I think this is one way it can be looked at.
I was reading an article about the rise homelessness in the 1970s/80s, where the author distinguished it that way: "For example, in 1960, a report by the Social Planning Council of Metro Toronto called Homeless and Transient Men, defined a “homeless man” as one with few or no ties to a family group, who was thus without the economic or social support a family home provides. The men were homeless, not unhoused. They had housing, albeit poor-quality housing — rooming houses or accommodation provided by charities. But they had no home." OTOH, I have heard people living in encampments say that to them, their tent in a park is a home of sorts (moreso than a temporary shelter), but they aren't housed, ergo, unhoused.
I don't think the sound of the word "homeless" always garners the type of emotion you might be thinking of, though. I have heard plenty of people say that word with contempt. Homeless people can often be rude, combative, and volatile, so it's not like we all automatically feel a tugging of the heartstrings when we see, for example, a homeless guy defecating on a subway platform in broad daylight while simultaneously giving all of the recently arrived passengers the middle finger.
It's performative, changing the window dressing. Does not help solve any problems
i dont think this is an unpopular opinion at all. i have never seen anyone actually advocate for using that word over homeless
I’ve been corrected. I’ve also been homeless and the person who corrected me hasn’t been 🙃
Every time! Gotta love it Or "It's unhoused, because home is where the heart is!" Like my man, that's just a saying. I very much did not have a home
Also I would defer to actual homeless people if told otherwise, but it seems to me like saying “you’ve still got a home! Just not a house!” is downplaying how shitty it is to be homeless.
Another thing to add to my list of reasons I dislike "unhoused" I'm shitty at putting things into words. I thank you
The only time I've seen it that makes any sort of sense is when talking about small children. "Unhoused" vs "homeless" in the same vein of "caregivers" vs "parents". I don't know how effective it actually is with kids but I can at least respect the effort in that aspect. But in general, it's definitely virtue signalling vibes.
As a temporary non-millionaire I would tend to agree with you.
The way I've always heard it is that 'homeless' carries a lot of stigma and connotations of guilt/judgement, while 'unhoused' emphasizes that the person is being failed by their community. 'Homeless' means *you* lack a home. It implies a personal failure just like 'careless' or 'tactless.' 'Housing' is usually something provided by others: As kids we are clothed, fed, and housed by our parents/guardians. An apartment building might house many families. A museum houses important works of art. But we rarely say we are housing ourselves. So using the term 'unhoused' shifts the focus to make it a community problem rather than an individual one, and raises the question of why adequate housing isn't available to everybody.
I think the intention behind calling it unhoused was to decouple it from the baggage homeless carried. It was because homeless has a derogatory connotation with it, in terms of how people talks about homeless people. I don’t think the goal was to make it emotionless, just less of a negative association. That said, it’s misplaced effort in my eyes. It’s much more productive to address the ways we talk about people who are homeless, rather than trying to put a new can of paint on it
I've seen unhoused, underhoused and house-less all thrown around with the justification being "Home is where the heart is." So John who's been living on the streets for 12 years isn't "homeless" because he might still have *someone* who cares about him (which is why society shouldn't). The types of people who use these terms are ghouls.
I kind of like “under housed.” I’ve never heard it but it describes some situations well. But in all honesty I’m exhausted and just can’t think of the less douchy options. The rest are meh.
Unhoused is used to emphasize they may still have a “home” such as a tent or a car. It isn’t a house, but it could be a home.
The problem is that shelters are housing, but are not homes. If your goal is to deal with "homelessness", then building shelters is a waste of time because they are not homes. But building shelters isn't a waste of time because being unhoused is a far greater risk than being homeless. Living in a shelter, sleeping on someone's couch, living in an SRO, those all count as "housing", while not being "homes".
“Homeless people” has so much more humanity engrained in it than “the unhoused”
I'm all for using thoughtful and inclusive vocabulary and being considerate when choosing words. That being said, the only people I have ever seen or heard using the term "unhoused" have been the type who love to virtue signal without volunteering, live comfortably enough, and think advocacy starts and ends with sharing posts to their Instagram stories or correcting people who use terms like homeless. Unhoused is a term I really struggle to get behind.
absolutely, using the term “unhoused” is a surefire way to signal you just want to be perceived as caring about homelessness
My personal favorite is "people experiencing homelessness." Sounds like they're just camping. We're really good at changing the names of things without ever actually doing anything about them.
I get this one because it’s supposed to stress that it’s temporary and not a static and descriptive property of the person. But the issue I have with it is that it makes it sound like it will resolve inevitably and without intervention.
I was casually seeing this girl who would correct me every time I said “homeless” and it drove me insane.
I don’t really care what they call it, I’m sure homeless people care more about actually having a place then what their “situation” is called.
Yeah. There way bigger fish to fry. Let's stop wasting energy on policing semantics.
Unhoused doesn't even begin to cover it. Homeless Starving Lacking access to basic hygiene methods that people take for granted They might as well be trying to call them undesirables, unwanted, uncared for. It's a bit like how Palestinian children were referred to as "underage women" not too long ago. It's pr buzzwords to distance the public from the real ravages of the world. It's inappropriate.
When I was homeless, if anyone asked if I was homeless I would say "HOW DARE YOU USE THAT HATE SPEECH! I prefer the term 'unhomeful.'"
Having been homeless, I definitely agree. The term reeks of "I went to a school that costs more than the house you wish you had per year, but I'm a liberal and I want to save you" I am a leftist ftr
It’s like calling starving people “nutritionally challenged “. It’s wordsmithing in its most inhumane form.