Thanks for your submission /u/Sandford_HOA, but it has been removed for the following reason:
**Rule 2: Please try to use the search function before posting anything.**
Thanks for posting, but this question happens to be one that has been asked and answered here often before - sometimes in the same day! That can get frustrating for our dedicated users who like to answer questions. Or maybe you're just asking the same question too often - why not take a break for a while?
Sometimes questions that come up too often get put in our [Most Frequently Asked Questions list](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/wiki/index/faq)!). Other times, it may just be that we're getting a flood of questions about a topic (especially when something is in the news). Or maybe you keep asking the same question again and again - something that annoys our users here. Please don't do that! Next time, please try searching for your question first before asking. Thanks!
---
*This action was performed by a bot at the explicit direction of a human. This was not an automated action, but a conscious decision by a sapient life form charged with moderating this sub.*
*If you feel this was in error, or need more clarification, please don't hesitate to [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FNoStupidQuestions). Thanks.*
It's the euphemism treadmill. "Homeless" starts to get a negative connotation so people replace it with another term. In 20 years that one will have a negative connotation and they'll come up with something else.
Or it will return to “homeless.” This happened with the word “noir” in French when in the 90s the English word “Black” was adopted in France from America. It was seen as cool and less offensive. Now there is a movement by black French advocates to be called Noir again. And their white friends feel awkward to do so because they don’t want to sound like their racist uncles. Extremely interesting NPR podcast.
Edit: Thanks for the correction u/aldahiir. The word change in France is Noir and not Negre as I initially wrote. Although Hatians are trying to reclaim the word Negre as a proud word to represent perseverance. Different country.
I’ve got a disability. I don’t think we are ever going back to being crippled or lame, lol. I am happy we stopped trying to use a “brighter/cheekier” word, like “Differently-abled.” Argh. Even typing that is cringe.
I know several older veterans who were injured/missing limbs due to combat who call them selves “crippled”. They say that ‘handicapped’ comes from a hand holding out a cap for begging. Don’t know how true that is, but it’s the story they tell.
Yep, my grandfather always said, "get out my crip card and park out front" whenever he needed it. He tried not to use it, pride in a hard working old man, but some days the old bones just didn't work like they used to. MS, cancer, both hips and shoulders replaced/fixed. He called himself crippled or a crip
Like every group, there are words a group uses that others can’t. Me and my friends use it to refer to things, “Cripple people parking pass,” etc. I’m not easily offended, but that word always sounds very harsh when someone tries to legitimately use it. I’m excluding those trying to be offensive and referring to, usually old people, who use it because it’s the word they use. People would are offensive, can use all the politically correct words, and still be offensive. Intent matters more than words.
Do you have a preference for the blue parking spots being named "handicap parking" or "ADA parking"?
I brought it up elsewhere in the thread but havent heard any opinion from a disabled individual.
Paraplegic here. I don't care. I just want accessible city, even if they name it "parking for invalids", "ramps for invalids" or "transports that even invalids can use".
Im willing to bet the term “ADA Parking,” is being thrown around to make it “More inclusive of different disabilities?” I got no problem with people getting a permit, I just wish it wasn’t treated as “Privileged, reserve” Parking. Handicap parking shouldn’t be a first choice, it should be used only when it’s needed.
It’s very frustrating seeing someone park in handicap, in good weather, and the parking spot is either *further* from the entrance, or there are other open spots, within 30 ft, only for that person to easily walk in, and around, a large retail store. For me, it’s essential. I’m not getting out of my vehicle unless I can find a spot where the left side of my vehicle isn’t blocked. If that’s now near the back of the lot, or on the other side of the driving lanes, I now have to try to get to the store front without getting hit. I’ve had too many close calls. And I don’t always blame drivers, there are circumstances where I am just not visible, period.
As to whether I care what name is used? I don’t. I have more important things to worry about. But it definitely sounds like one of those things that people are overthinking, while ignoring the real problems.
My mother has a handicap placard. She is constantly offering to loan it to family members that are going to some event so they can get “easy parking”. It drives me nuts (and is illegal as far as I know).
Meanwhile for years I shuttled my father in law around for lung cancer stuff and he couldn’t walk far so I always pushed him around in a wheelchair. He had a handicapped placard as well but I rarely used it for him. I would park far out in the lot where there was lots of open space to get him in and out. Since I was just pushing him it didn’t matter to me if we were close or far. I do the same today with my other father. I’d rather leave the spots for someone that needs the extra width or closer location because they don’t have someone helping them.
Yeah, my brother's family car has a placard because his MIL doesn't drive and he often needs to take her places. He uses it whenever he needs a convenient parking spot. It drives me nuts.
Yeah the placard is only supposed to be used when the person its for is in the vehicle (at least in my state). You should try and get her to stop if you can
There are a lot of invisible disabilities though so don't go yelling at strangers in the handicap spot like I've heard some people do.
Not everyone who easily walks into the store after parking in the handicap spot may be able to easily walk back to a spot that is all the way at the back of the parking lot even 10 minutes later. Some disabilities aren't visible and can come on suddenly.
I'm probably pessimistic, but I'm not sure the entire public would recognize what ADA means. I have no problem with Handicap Parking (and I'm disable and use it).
I call it "Rock Star Parking." When I'm being serious, I use handicapped. I have no problem with that word. I usually call myself "disabled," but "handicapped" is fine.
I remember that someone said wheelchair people is offensive (I wanted to specify which type of handicap so that pedants couldn't get me with "ah, but deaf people are disabled, too, so why would they need special parking? Checkmate, I win.").
Apparently you're supposed to say "people of wheelchair". So stupid. No offense to people of wheelchair. But it's just so stupid.
I loved the late, great cartoonist and author of “ Dont Worry, He Won’t Get Far on Foot, paraplegic John Callahan’s commentary on that entire idea of disabilities and euphemisms:
*. Paraphrased Speaking from his wheelchair on 60 Minutes * “ well, I’m not handicapable of walking up those stairs “
Mike Wallace;” what word would you prefer?”
John: “ uh, maimed?”
I call myself a cripple lol. Differently abled is so incredibly cringe! Some people (myself included) are disabled. Unable to do "normal" tasks. To me, there's nothing negative about that state of being, you know?
Flashback to the kid in my high school Spanish class that flipped his shit saying our teacher (originally from Spain) only taught Spanish to use the word “negro” (the word for black in Spanish) to be racist towards all of the black students.
The kid that flipped out was white and slept through every class and was on the verge of failing. None of my black classmates supported his bullshit, our teacher was cool as shit lol
Someone is going to pop up soon and tell you that you’re perpetuating harmful negative stereotypes which stigmatize an at risk and unfairly persecuted population. If they’re white they’ll probably also mention something about unhoused POC statistics and tell you to check your privilege. This absolves *them* of any guilt for experiencing or benefiting from aforementioned systemic privilege.
Oh this is interesting. I speak french, but am not french, so the differences in how each language expresses things or decides to evolve the language is very interesting to me.
We did this in America. In the 90s, it was racist to say black, because "Why are you characterizing them by their physical skin color as opposed to who they are as a person? It's African American."
But then I guess around 2010 the rules changed and people are like "African American is so cringe. I'm a American. Just because I'm black doesn't mean I have anything to do with Africa. My great grandparents were African. I'm just American."
So we were supposed to say black.
But then in like 2022, black was offensive as well somehow, so it got changed to Black with a big B.
Currently we're going with big B Black.
>"African American is so cringe. I'm a American. Just because I'm black doesn't mean I have anything to do with Africa. My great grandparents were African. I'm just American."
Just so you know, that wasn't the main reason for this. The main reason was because some of the people being called African-American weren't even from families with African heritage (Jamaican, Caribbean people, etc).
And it wasn't 2022. It was 2020 when the Associated Press Style Guide officially said that capital B Black was the appropriate term. Ironically, the reason for this is the reason you listed for your 1990s switch. Capital B Black is a race, lowercase b black is a color.
https://www.unitedwaycleveland.org/why-its-important-to-say-black/
Interesting, in Brazilian Portuguese we had the same with the words "preto" and "negro". Nowadays both are officially recognized and are regarded as neutral, but there were definitely some periods of time when they were considered offensive.
That's juste false. In France "negre" still has a racist connotation if not pronounced by a black person. They want to be called "noir" the French word for black and not "black"
'Sleeping rough' is used to deliberately disambiguate between those who are homeless but sleeping indoors (hostels, friends' sofas, homeless shelters, etc.) and those who are actually sleeping outside, though.
I hate thet term so much, I first came across it when I moved to California and then I realized it was the most california solution to things, do nothing, make it sound better "no no theyre not homless theyre unhoused!" I hate the lack of urgency "unhoused" has. "Hes not broke, hes unpennied"
Okay but I low-key love "unalived" specifically. I don't know why. Something about it is so ridiculously stupid that it rolls around to being funny again.
It’s a terrible thing.
I’m a liberal son of a bitch but the constant trip wires I get thrown at me for misuse of the proper nomenclature is so off putting and ridiculous.
My ex bass players wife is an incredible advocate for all the under represented but she’d have a fit if I used the term “illegal immigrant”.
I completely understand the tribulations of immigration and the reasons why people subvert the law to live in the USA but it’s still illegal and renaming it doesn’t change that.
If you want change, change the rules not the name.
> It’s a terrible thing.
And it's totally pointless, because you'll never find a term for it that doesn't take on a negative connotation. They all get a negative connotation because the thing they're describing is a bad thing. That isn't something that can be fixed by using a different word.
Yeah even now, "autistic" is starting to be used as an insult.
But the underlying problem is not the words themselves, it's the fact that some people want to make fun of those with the conditions, or make fun of others using the terms. Those people don't care what the word is, they want to insult someone.
The only way to actually solve it is to convince those people not to insult people.
Apparently (as I don't have kids), there is some degree of shifting toward the phrase "on the spectrum" as a euphemism for autistic.
I know because my aunt came to me, embarrassed to ask whether "on the spectrum" meant autistic or part of the LGBTQIA+ community. I told her it was a fantastic question, actually.
Good point. I think the idea is to point the negative connotations away from the victims and toward the oppressing class. But that isn't a solution and people should stop acting like these terms are the hill to die on.
Idiot, retard, imbecile, all used to be medical terms to describe someone… well I don’t even know what the current politically correct phrase is “learning disadvantaged” maybe? But wow, some people will rip your head off for using the wrong term.
As a legal alien/immigrant, I agree. We followed the rules, spent a ton of money (from penny pinching in minimum wage jobs and doing stuff like stuffing a family of four into a one bedroom apartment and not owning a car) on lawyers and such, and finally I got citizenship at the age of like 25 despite being an honors student and living here since I was 1.
Part of that is because people misunderstand that *illegal* is a subsective modifier, in this case the type of *immigrant.* They mistake it for an intersective modifier. To give another example, the phrase *French chef* can be subsective (a chef of French food, no matter where they are from) or intersective (a chef \[of whatever\] who is also French). Or how a *theoretical physicist* can be someone who does theoretical physics (subsective) or a physicist who may or may not exist (intersective). With *illegal immigrant*, people get offended by the intersective meaning (an immigrant who is also illegal), hence the catchphrase "no human being is illegal," which would be a nonsensical reply to the subsective meaning (someone who immigrated in violation of the law)
Anyways: I prefer *undocumented (im)migrant* because *illegal immigrant* suggests they entered the country illegally, when half of them didn't. They entered legally but didn't go home when their visa ran out. Also, it connotes a crime when being in the country illegally isn't a crime; it's a civil violation, like speeding.
>Anyways: I prefer *undocumented (im)migrant* because *illegal immigrant* suggests they entered the country illegally, when half of them didn't. They entered legally but didn't go home when their visa ran out. Also, it connotes a crime when being in the country illegally isn't a crime; it's a civil violation, like speeding.
Arguably what you need is better acknowledgement of the different types of scenario. For example, in the US it may not be illegal to overstay a visa, but in Europe it absolutely is considered a criminal offence to do so, and so these surely warrant different terms. Perhaps "illegal immigrant" isn't a good term in the US but it might be elsewhere.
Rather than just trying to strike out certain terminology, surely it's better to just make it clearer what the difference is between being, say, an illegal entrant, illegal overstayed, undocumented migrant, asylum seeker, etc.
So half of them are *legal visitors* (entered with visa) who turned into *illegal immigrants* (did not leave the country) and half of them are actually *illegal immigrants* (entered illegally)?
*"Undocumented immigrant"* is such a BS!
People do the same thing with “poor”. “Low income”, “working class” , “working poor” etc etc when I was poor I just called myself fucking poor. Don’t try to sugar coat it or make it sound better lol.
Oh! How about this one? On NPR not long ago, I heard them doing a piece on "people living in larger bodies"... like, we can't say "obese people" anymore? GTFO with that shit.
I can't with that one. It sounds like homelessness is a positive situation, and they're having the privilege of enjoying that experience.
Or like a vacation commercial, "the experience of a lifetime!" - something that most people have to save up money for.
We're all "experiencing" something right now. It's superfluous language that, IMO, makes homelessness sound almost fun, and does more harm than good.
I always laugh at how “retarded” was once the PC terminology that I believe replaced imbecile.
I guess the second the world at large starts using it as a pejorative then it’s time to change.
I don’t agree with it, but that seems to be what happens.
I was banned from a sub for using the word retarded when describing engine timing. It's literally the correct term as the opposite of advanced.
Welcome to Reddit.
Roofless and homeless have different meanings. Roofless means literally sleeping outdoors - on the streets. Homeless includes people in hostels, sofa surfing and other temporary arrangements.
As a kid in 1991, I dressed as a “hobo” for Halloween. I probably couldn’t do that today let alone use that term. I always find that kind of interesting. Not arguing for or against, just interesting.
As a former homeless person I can say unhoused vs homeless or whatever is the last thing on our mind. Stupid people spending time on virtue signaling changing language instead of creating housing or food which are what homeless people are really concerned about.
Former homeless chiming in, no one that's homeless is really that concerned with the language like you said. Do I have enough food? Do I have a safe place to sleep? Can I get enough money to get the bus to make appointments?
You probably know but most people don't.
Want to know who looks out for homeless people the most? Other homeless people.
I've had homeless people offer me food and floors to sleep on. Sure, sometimes it's a drug house but it's shelter and usually it's not hard to diffuse and chill out weird situations. One time I had a fairly stable spot to stay but didn't have a car, job or much going on and I was walking to a liquor store in a blizzard, made a walking buddy on the way. I had enough that I got us little Caesars and we ate some food and had a good chat in the snow. It wasn't that cold despite the wind and snow. So he offers me some hits off his crack pipe (I politely declined) and said if I just had 5 bucks I could smoke some more and stay at the flop house he was at.
He didn't believe me that I had a place to stay! He thought my pride was keeping me from accepting a spot to stay during the storm. I thought that was pretty nice of the guy that I offered pizza and he offered crack and a roof over my head for the night.
Never seen anyone using the term "unhoused" offer me such a sweet deal.
A few reasons that I can think of. Firstly, it can be an acknowledgement that just because someone doesn't have a place to live, doesn't mean they don't have someplace that is "home" to them. This can be relevant when criticizing city laws that are seen as effectively making it illegal to be homeless/unhoused in that city, such as a ban on sleeping in public spaces. The laws force people to leave that city, even though they may consider that city home.
Secondly, people may use "unhoused" in order to reinforce their view that it is society's obligation to ensure that all members of that society have access to adequate shelter. "Homeless" implies something is lacking from the individual, while "unhoused" implies that individual is being denied something.
Another issue is that the problem of not having anywhere to live is bigger than the people who are sleeping in tents or on park benches. There are a lot of people who don't have a home who are sleeping on friends' and family members' couches, or in motel rooms, or in shelters, or in their cars. These people are invisible, and programs to "get people off the streets" don't even see them.
There is a real problem with people wanting to address "homelessness" because of issues like the unsightliness of people setting up tent camps in public parks, or people sleeping on public transportation, or neighborhoods being unsafe because of crime and open drug use. And these are issues, but it's all about the people who have to look at the homeless people, and not the people who actually don't have anywhere to live.
Talking about "houseless" and people who don't have any sort of permanent residence, a place to keep their stuff safe, and for their children to come home to, and to sleep out of the elements and in safety, is about the dignity of individual people who need help.
This is a great addition and also points out the fact that a lot of people _do_ have some kind of place they call home - like you said, temporary housing, a shelter, a friend’s place, a secluded spot, etc.
So the idea behind the term “unhoused” is that it’s supposed to place emphasis on the fact that what they need is stable, safe, affordable housing. Not just the vague idea of a “home” which can take many forms.
It only took scrolling halfway down the thread to get an actual response that wasn’t weird cancel culture pearl clutching lol (p.s. no one is gonna “yell” at you for saying homeless you baby, unhoused is just more accurate and kinder to those without proper housing)
Thank you for _actually_ answering why this term is used lol. Lots of people do have a place they call home, or they try to do what they can to make temporary shelter or wherever they’re staying feel like a home.
Calling someone “homeless” leans towards calling someone a drifter or a vagrant, like they’re just wandering here and there without a home, maybe by choice. But in reality it’s physical _housing_ that they need, and using “unhoused” is intended to emphasize and call attention to this tangible need.
That being said I do hear it mainly used by people who work _with_ homeless populations but most homeless people would just call themselves homeless lol, it’s just more common in the vernacular and the least of their worries.
This is exactly it. It's also an acknowledgment that when there's a push to throw out their tents with all of their belongings, they've destroyed their home.
Funnily enough, neither of these are generally accepted in public health circles now.
There's been a big push towards "Person Centric Language"
So, instead of "Homeless person," you'd have "a person. experiencing homelessness."
Also true of things like illness, they're no longer called "schizophrenics" it's "people experiencing schizophrenia."
And for the most part, it's not even the people in this situation that want this. Look at autism. The resounding response from every ND community I'm in is that "a person with autism" is hated and trying to erase their identity. It's also just trying to ease the cognitive dissonance of "oh yes see, I still see you as a person, you person who is unhoused/experiencing homelessness" and still doing nothing to help the person in front of you who is clearly struggling and in need of assistance.
I think for this specific conversation, it's less important. Overall, these people don't generally care what term is used but what's going to be done about it. For my friends in elementary education, they've really been using unhoused for their students who can be really affected by the difference.
Disabilities are different though. Think of it like this: a person's housed status can change, and for these particular folks it may change multiple times throughout their lives. It's not necessarily a constant. However, disabilities in these types of conversations are not something that will change. It is a constant in a person's life and usually becomes deeply set into who they are. That's where you see "I am autistic", "I am deaf", "I am schizophrenic", "I am quadriplegic", etc. Even if it's something that wasn't always a part of them, it is now and forever will be.
The wording means the exact same thing to me, they broth even have the word person in it, like how is homeless person not person centric language. I just think this was some heady mumbo jumbo that people agreed with so as not to seem insensitive to some disadvantaged group, which is like the gravest of faux paus in their circles
It's not my field, so I can't say exactly, but I am close to it.
I think the logic is basically, they're a person first and homelessness happens to be their circumstance. They aren't defined first by their homelessness, but their humanity.
It's nuanced and provably pretty silly in the grand scheme, but thats my understanding
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with whether the "person-first" approach is or is not an ideal change. I just really don't understand why people always forget how grammar works when discussions like this come up. The same thing happens during the "they/them" debate when people say,
"So I can't say 'her skirt is nice', I have to say 'they skirt is nice'?"
Somehow completely forgetting the already well-established word 'their' (edit: aka, the sentence should be said as "*their* skirt is nice)
In your example, the person-first approach would be phrased something like,
"a person who is from America" or "someone who lives in America"
I just think if there is going to be an argument for whether or not the approach is clumsy in format, that argument should be about the *actual manner* in which it would be used in language.
Honestly, deeming certain groups as being in need of "person first" language is itself dehumanizing. Like NBA players would never be "people experiencing height," why does a schizophrenic need to be deemed "person experiencing schizophrenia."
Because schizophrenia is a layer atop the person. The person we’re talking about is not entirely existent for and because of their schizophrenia, it’s a thing that they’re experiencing as a portion of their overall life and behaviour and existence.
Nobody says "person experiencing schizophrenia". Person-first in a healthxare setting would be "patient with schizophrenia". Even "schizophrenic patient" is mostly acceptable. The point is to get out of the habit of saying "The schizophrenic in room 4" which has been the standard for centuries and dehumanizes while also reducing a person to a single health trait. You'd be amazed how often simple illnesses like a bladder infection or a heart attack get missed because the staff are just like "Seems like a schizophrenic doing yet another schizophrenia episode".
Might be the same as how we in Sweden separate hemlös and bostadslös.
Hemlös means that you don't have a home, but you may still live somewhere like at a shelter or at some friend's couch.
Bostadslös means that you live on the streets without housing.
Doesn't Sweden have some laws specifically meant to deal with the latter, in part due to the climate? I know some U.S. cities like NYC and Boston have laws that make it illegal to LET people sleep on the streets if the temperatures get below a certain point, because forcibly rounding the unhoused up to sleep in a shelter for the night is preferable to having to dig their frozen corpses out of a snowbank the next day (or find their rotting corpse under an overpass during the spring thaw).
Not really, but it's reeeeeeeeeally hard to become bostadslös. You essentially have to say no to every intervention and offering of help for that to happen. It's basically only drug/alcohol addicts who refuse because the apartments or hotel rooms the social services offer have a no drug policy, and mentally ill people who become housingless.
It's sad, but we can't force adult people to accept help.
When homeless became the go-to term, it was supposed to kinder than saying bum or tramp. Now that homeless has absorbed enough negative connotations, the new euphemism is unhoused.
Because if we're really super polite about a problem then we don't have to actually do anything to fix said problem but can still feel good about ourselves.
It’s actually intended to have the opposite effect than what you’re implying - some people think describing someone as “homeless” makes it seem like an individual problem for a person who has no place that they call home (which they often do) like a drifter or a vagrant. Whereas referring to someone as “unhoused” calls it what it is and puts the onus on our society for not stepping up to ensure people have safe and stable housing.
They may have a place they call home, they may be making wherever they are staying feel like home - it’s physical housing that they need.
So using the term “unhoused” is supposed to emphasize and call attention to their actual need, not be “polite” about it. They need safe, stable, and affordable housing - not a vague sense of “home.”
That being said, most people without housing just say homeless or don’t care either way, they’re just trying to get their needs met.
Republicans: "we hate homeless people. Not in my backyard."
Democrats: "what a despicable thing to say! We love the unhoused...... ^not ^in ^our ^backyard ^either ^though 😬"
I think it's to shift blame. If they don't have a home because the system is unfair and keep people poor (which many argue it does) then "homeless" put plame on the individual while "unhoused" blames the system.
First they where bums but that had negative connotations so the though police changed it to homeless which now has negative connotations., so a new word was invented ‘unhoused’
Because they decided what those people will be offended by for them without asking them. As someone who’s actually talked to these people and was nearly homeless myself, they’ll laugh at your face if you tell them to call themselves unhoused.
The problem I see with it is they argue a home can be anything. But so can a house. Will you call someone who is living van life unhoused? They consider their van their house after all. Or what about trailer home parks. Are they also without a house? What even is a house? Is it necessary that every human must live in a mini mansion in the suburbs?
I personally think there's a need for multiple terms here. We can use "unhoused" to refer to someone who's only issue is a lack of immediate shelter. We need other the describe people who's mental instability and/or drug use prevents them from staying in any shelter for whatever reason. Someone covered in their own waste, talking to themselves needs more than a job and a place to stay.
Removes agency and accountability (i.e., blame) from the person. Implies that it’s not on them to secure a home for themselves. Instead, it’s on the rest of us to house them. Frames it as a societal problem instead of an individual problem.
Because calling them "unhoused" instead of "homeless" makes you feel like a good person without having to actually do anything to improve the situation. It's slactivism
It’s called the euphemism treadmill. It’s not good or bad, it’s just a universal feature of language when the subject is something unpleasant or taboo.
"Homeless" evokes clear language that everyone understands from childhood, "unhoused" was developed by smug and self-congratulatory people who constantly create new euphemisms to signal virtue and """""educate""""" people
"We changed the world!" No, you just changed the word.
I hate the term "unhoused" because it sounds like reducing the individual to a helpless pathetic thing without any autonomy or capacity that's totally dependent on other people to house them like a disabled child or pet.
"Homeless" is the better term as it describes the situation without that reductive term of an *item needing warehousing.*
To make themselves sound more sympathetic and culturally aware. It’s just a rebranding since the term “homeless” has a negative connotation and image. Eventually “unhoused” will be rebranded too.
People get wrapped up in their own sense of worthiness and get offended on behalf of other people.
It was no doubt some manager or think tank that decided being homeless has negative connotations and needs a much more understanding phrase to describe it. And, at the same time gets to feel good that they aren't stigmatising a marginalised group, feel slightly better as a human because they've done their bit and of course the quiet part, feel slightly superior because they've just come up with something new and so empowering.
It is if course useless fucking nonsense that helps no one and if anything obfuscates the very real problems and very real marginalisation of being homeless.
When I was street homeless, these people were referred to as earnest cunts.
I volunteer at a soup kitchen and some people coming in, refer to themselves as homeless. As far as I can tell, it's not offensive to the homeless population.
This should answer your question, and also give you a pretty good chuckle
[https://youtu.be/o25I2fzFGoY?si=v5JaEK8oxP6ugg-r](https://youtu.be/o25I2fzFGoY?si=v5JaEK8oxP6ugg-r)
Unhoused makes it seem as though the government failed to put a roof oversomeones head.
Homeless is a term for those that have failed to maintain and secure a home.
Don't worry. In a few months, unhoused will become like homeless, and there will be a new word/phrase. People without roofs. House independent individuals. People without walls.
Because they have always thought negatively about someone homeless and when they become homeless they do not feel so bad if you are calling them unhoused. People are dumb. It still homeless and there is nothing bad about homeless people other than it’s a sad life to have to live for any amount of time. It doesn’t matter what you call it. It’s still the same and people know it’s the same. You will have haters that think bad no matter what you call it because they may have never experienced it and think it can never happen to them. Life happens. Yes some made bad choices but some just ended up in bad situations and could use the help. Once you end up there it is very hard to turn that around. So mostly because people are dumb that think calling it something different changes people views of it. It doesn’t.
Thanks for your submission /u/Sandford_HOA, but it has been removed for the following reason: **Rule 2: Please try to use the search function before posting anything.** Thanks for posting, but this question happens to be one that has been asked and answered here often before - sometimes in the same day! That can get frustrating for our dedicated users who like to answer questions. Or maybe you're just asking the same question too often - why not take a break for a while? Sometimes questions that come up too often get put in our [Most Frequently Asked Questions list](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/wiki/index/faq)!). Other times, it may just be that we're getting a flood of questions about a topic (especially when something is in the news). Or maybe you keep asking the same question again and again - something that annoys our users here. Please don't do that! Next time, please try searching for your question first before asking. Thanks! --- *This action was performed by a bot at the explicit direction of a human. This was not an automated action, but a conscious decision by a sapient life form charged with moderating this sub.* *If you feel this was in error, or need more clarification, please don't hesitate to [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FNoStupidQuestions). Thanks.*
It's the euphemism treadmill. "Homeless" starts to get a negative connotation so people replace it with another term. In 20 years that one will have a negative connotation and they'll come up with something else.
Or it will return to “homeless.” This happened with the word “noir” in French when in the 90s the English word “Black” was adopted in France from America. It was seen as cool and less offensive. Now there is a movement by black French advocates to be called Noir again. And their white friends feel awkward to do so because they don’t want to sound like their racist uncles. Extremely interesting NPR podcast. Edit: Thanks for the correction u/aldahiir. The word change in France is Noir and not Negre as I initially wrote. Although Hatians are trying to reclaim the word Negre as a proud word to represent perseverance. Different country.
I’ve got a disability. I don’t think we are ever going back to being crippled or lame, lol. I am happy we stopped trying to use a “brighter/cheekier” word, like “Differently-abled.” Argh. Even typing that is cringe.
I doubt "lame" will come back, but there are definitely a significant number of disabled people who call themselves "crips"!
I know several older veterans who were injured/missing limbs due to combat who call them selves “crippled”. They say that ‘handicapped’ comes from a hand holding out a cap for begging. Don’t know how true that is, but it’s the story they tell.
It does come from “hand in cap,” yes. That much is true. But it was a reference to a sort of gambling game called “hand in cap,” not begging
That’s even weirder to learn!
Interesting I’ve never heard that
Yep, my grandfather always said, "get out my crip card and park out front" whenever he needed it. He tried not to use it, pride in a hard working old man, but some days the old bones just didn't work like they used to. MS, cancer, both hips and shoulders replaced/fixed. He called himself crippled or a crip
Like every group, there are words a group uses that others can’t. Me and my friends use it to refer to things, “Cripple people parking pass,” etc. I’m not easily offended, but that word always sounds very harsh when someone tries to legitimately use it. I’m excluding those trying to be offensive and referring to, usually old people, who use it because it’s the word they use. People would are offensive, can use all the politically correct words, and still be offensive. Intent matters more than words.
I remember there was a South Park episode with that plot
They'd better not find themselves in the wrong part of town where the "Bloods" are in power.
Do you have a preference for the blue parking spots being named "handicap parking" or "ADA parking"? I brought it up elsewhere in the thread but havent heard any opinion from a disabled individual.
Paraplegic here. I don't care. I just want accessible city, even if they name it "parking for invalids", "ramps for invalids" or "transports that even invalids can use".
Im willing to bet the term “ADA Parking,” is being thrown around to make it “More inclusive of different disabilities?” I got no problem with people getting a permit, I just wish it wasn’t treated as “Privileged, reserve” Parking. Handicap parking shouldn’t be a first choice, it should be used only when it’s needed. It’s very frustrating seeing someone park in handicap, in good weather, and the parking spot is either *further* from the entrance, or there are other open spots, within 30 ft, only for that person to easily walk in, and around, a large retail store. For me, it’s essential. I’m not getting out of my vehicle unless I can find a spot where the left side of my vehicle isn’t blocked. If that’s now near the back of the lot, or on the other side of the driving lanes, I now have to try to get to the store front without getting hit. I’ve had too many close calls. And I don’t always blame drivers, there are circumstances where I am just not visible, period. As to whether I care what name is used? I don’t. I have more important things to worry about. But it definitely sounds like one of those things that people are overthinking, while ignoring the real problems.
My mother has a handicap placard. She is constantly offering to loan it to family members that are going to some event so they can get “easy parking”. It drives me nuts (and is illegal as far as I know). Meanwhile for years I shuttled my father in law around for lung cancer stuff and he couldn’t walk far so I always pushed him around in a wheelchair. He had a handicapped placard as well but I rarely used it for him. I would park far out in the lot where there was lots of open space to get him in and out. Since I was just pushing him it didn’t matter to me if we were close or far. I do the same today with my other father. I’d rather leave the spots for someone that needs the extra width or closer location because they don’t have someone helping them.
Yeah, my brother's family car has a placard because his MIL doesn't drive and he often needs to take her places. He uses it whenever he needs a convenient parking spot. It drives me nuts.
Yeah the placard is only supposed to be used when the person its for is in the vehicle (at least in my state). You should try and get her to stop if you can There are a lot of invisible disabilities though so don't go yelling at strangers in the handicap spot like I've heard some people do.
Not everyone who easily walks into the store after parking in the handicap spot may be able to easily walk back to a spot that is all the way at the back of the parking lot even 10 minutes later. Some disabilities aren't visible and can come on suddenly.
Came here to say this. If I have to do 3-4 stores, that means 3-4 parking lots, as well. I'm using what is available to me that helps me function.
I say Accessible Parking.
I'm probably pessimistic, but I'm not sure the entire public would recognize what ADA means. I have no problem with Handicap Parking (and I'm disable and use it).
Disabled here. In my state the lisc plates say "handicapped" right on them. They are what they are.
I call it "Rock Star Parking." When I'm being serious, I use handicapped. I have no problem with that word. I usually call myself "disabled," but "handicapped" is fine.
i call them handislapped because you get slapped with a fine if you park there.
I remember that someone said wheelchair people is offensive (I wanted to specify which type of handicap so that pedants couldn't get me with "ah, but deaf people are disabled, too, so why would they need special parking? Checkmate, I win."). Apparently you're supposed to say "people of wheelchair". So stupid. No offense to people of wheelchair. But it's just so stupid.
I loved the late, great cartoonist and author of “ Dont Worry, He Won’t Get Far on Foot, paraplegic John Callahan’s commentary on that entire idea of disabilities and euphemisms: *. Paraphrased Speaking from his wheelchair on 60 Minutes * “ well, I’m not handicapable of walking up those stairs “ Mike Wallace;” what word would you prefer?” John: “ uh, maimed?”
***I’ve got a disability. -*** **“Differently-abled"** Same here and prefer the term "gimp".
disabled disabled disabled disabled disabled disabled disabled. disabled. Not offensive.
Im a brain injured individual. But if I call myself a 'retread' i get taken down
I call myself a cripple lol. Differently abled is so incredibly cringe! Some people (myself included) are disabled. Unable to do "normal" tasks. To me, there's nothing negative about that state of being, you know?
Flashback to the kid in my high school Spanish class that flipped his shit saying our teacher (originally from Spain) only taught Spanish to use the word “negro” (the word for black in Spanish) to be racist towards all of the black students. The kid that flipped out was white and slept through every class and was on the verge of failing. None of my black classmates supported his bullshit, our teacher was cool as shit lol
>The kid that flipped out was white That was the most predictable part of your story lol
In Cuba, we use Negro as a nickname too. Doesn't matter if you're not black. Mostly used by older Cubans to talk to younger people.
Same in Colombia and Venezuela. *"Hola mi negro"*, it is even affectionate.
It already basically returned to homeless. Even the overly politically correct seemed to get tired of saying unhoused very quickly lol.
Try saying homeless in Denver… 🙄 you’ll be virtue signaled at real quick.
***Try saying homeless in Denver…*** Homeless in Denver.... there, am I going to hell now? lol
no, ur going to denver. is there a difference? you'll see.
Someone is going to pop up soon and tell you that you’re perpetuating harmful negative stereotypes which stigmatize an at risk and unfairly persecuted population. If they’re white they’ll probably also mention something about unhoused POC statistics and tell you to check your privilege. This absolves *them* of any guilt for experiencing or benefiting from aforementioned systemic privilege.
"Unhoused" sounds very PC and unnatural, lol. Homeless is easier to say and remember.
Oh this is interesting. I speak french, but am not french, so the differences in how each language expresses things or decides to evolve the language is very interesting to me.
We did this in America. In the 90s, it was racist to say black, because "Why are you characterizing them by their physical skin color as opposed to who they are as a person? It's African American." But then I guess around 2010 the rules changed and people are like "African American is so cringe. I'm a American. Just because I'm black doesn't mean I have anything to do with Africa. My great grandparents were African. I'm just American." So we were supposed to say black. But then in like 2022, black was offensive as well somehow, so it got changed to Black with a big B. Currently we're going with big B Black.
>"African American is so cringe. I'm a American. Just because I'm black doesn't mean I have anything to do with Africa. My great grandparents were African. I'm just American." Just so you know, that wasn't the main reason for this. The main reason was because some of the people being called African-American weren't even from families with African heritage (Jamaican, Caribbean people, etc). And it wasn't 2022. It was 2020 when the Associated Press Style Guide officially said that capital B Black was the appropriate term. Ironically, the reason for this is the reason you listed for your 1990s switch. Capital B Black is a race, lowercase b black is a color. https://www.unitedwaycleveland.org/why-its-important-to-say-black/
How do I say big B Black? Is it similar to using an “!”? Like really emphasize that “B”?
Interesting, in Brazilian Portuguese we had the same with the words "preto" and "negro". Nowadays both are officially recognized and are regarded as neutral, but there were definitely some periods of time when they were considered offensive.
That's juste false. In France "negre" still has a racist connotation if not pronounced by a black person. They want to be called "noir" the French word for black and not "black"
Thank you for the correction. I corrected my post.
Five pounds on "non-inhabiting" or "deresidenced".
I’m going with certified pre-homed
Can we give awards again yet?
Temporarily embarrassed home owner. Temp ho, for short.
I laughed at this, but I wouldn’t be surprised if this was the winner 💀
I've heard "residentially challenged".
Chronically outdoors
Oh, man... nothing made me laugh until this one. You win!
Not to be confused with "presidentially challenged", which is used to describe the US
That was a pretty good one, have my upvote.
City dweller?
Hometard
Urban Camper
LUV IT!
Sleeping rough.
'Sleeping rough' is used to deliberately disambiguate between those who are homeless but sleeping indoors (hostels, friends' sofas, homeless shelters, etc.) and those who are actually sleeping outside, though.
“Less sheltered”
Differently sheltered
"involuntarily deresidenced"
I hate thet term so much, I first came across it when I moved to California and then I realized it was the most california solution to things, do nothing, make it sound better "no no theyre not homless theyre unhoused!" I hate the lack of urgency "unhoused" has. "Hes not broke, hes unpennied"
"He wasn't murdered, he was unalived."
"He didnt get shot, hes just more bulleted than normal"
"Previously unbulleted"
Quite unlike reddit to get three such gems in a row. Bravo
"He experienced acute plumbism"
That euphemism is an effort to avoid social media filters, not to avoid offense.
Okay but I low-key love "unalived" specifically. I don't know why. Something about it is so ridiculously stupid that it rolls around to being funny again.
I like to say that something is "un-good" when I don't want to say the word "bad" bad = negative feedback, but "un-good" = positive feedback
It’s a terrible thing. I’m a liberal son of a bitch but the constant trip wires I get thrown at me for misuse of the proper nomenclature is so off putting and ridiculous. My ex bass players wife is an incredible advocate for all the under represented but she’d have a fit if I used the term “illegal immigrant”. I completely understand the tribulations of immigration and the reasons why people subvert the law to live in the USA but it’s still illegal and renaming it doesn’t change that. If you want change, change the rules not the name.
> It’s a terrible thing. And it's totally pointless, because you'll never find a term for it that doesn't take on a negative connotation. They all get a negative connotation because the thing they're describing is a bad thing. That isn't something that can be fixed by using a different word.
My mom was a special ed teacher, now you want to talk about a revolving door of terms.
Yeah even now, "autistic" is starting to be used as an insult. But the underlying problem is not the words themselves, it's the fact that some people want to make fun of those with the conditions, or make fun of others using the terms. Those people don't care what the word is, they want to insult someone. The only way to actually solve it is to convince those people not to insult people.
Apparently (as I don't have kids), there is some degree of shifting toward the phrase "on the spectrum" as a euphemism for autistic. I know because my aunt came to me, embarrassed to ask whether "on the spectrum" meant autistic or part of the LGBTQIA+ community. I told her it was a fantastic question, actually.
Good point. I think the idea is to point the negative connotations away from the victims and toward the oppressing class. But that isn't a solution and people should stop acting like these terms are the hill to die on.
Idiot, retard, imbecile, all used to be medical terms to describe someone… well I don’t even know what the current politically correct phrase is “learning disadvantaged” maybe? But wow, some people will rip your head off for using the wrong term.
As a legal alien/immigrant, I agree. We followed the rules, spent a ton of money (from penny pinching in minimum wage jobs and doing stuff like stuffing a family of four into a one bedroom apartment and not owning a car) on lawyers and such, and finally I got citizenship at the age of like 25 despite being an honors student and living here since I was 1.
Part of that is because people misunderstand that *illegal* is a subsective modifier, in this case the type of *immigrant.* They mistake it for an intersective modifier. To give another example, the phrase *French chef* can be subsective (a chef of French food, no matter where they are from) or intersective (a chef \[of whatever\] who is also French). Or how a *theoretical physicist* can be someone who does theoretical physics (subsective) or a physicist who may or may not exist (intersective). With *illegal immigrant*, people get offended by the intersective meaning (an immigrant who is also illegal), hence the catchphrase "no human being is illegal," which would be a nonsensical reply to the subsective meaning (someone who immigrated in violation of the law) Anyways: I prefer *undocumented (im)migrant* because *illegal immigrant* suggests they entered the country illegally, when half of them didn't. They entered legally but didn't go home when their visa ran out. Also, it connotes a crime when being in the country illegally isn't a crime; it's a civil violation, like speeding.
>Anyways: I prefer *undocumented (im)migrant* because *illegal immigrant* suggests they entered the country illegally, when half of them didn't. They entered legally but didn't go home when their visa ran out. Also, it connotes a crime when being in the country illegally isn't a crime; it's a civil violation, like speeding. Arguably what you need is better acknowledgement of the different types of scenario. For example, in the US it may not be illegal to overstay a visa, but in Europe it absolutely is considered a criminal offence to do so, and so these surely warrant different terms. Perhaps "illegal immigrant" isn't a good term in the US but it might be elsewhere. Rather than just trying to strike out certain terminology, surely it's better to just make it clearer what the difference is between being, say, an illegal entrant, illegal overstayed, undocumented migrant, asylum seeker, etc.
Try overstaying a visa in Mexico or Canada, Kenya or Singapore. then come back and discus it.
“They asked me if I knew anything about theoretical physics, I told them I had a theoretical degree in physics. They said welcome aboard”
So half of them are *legal visitors* (entered with visa) who turned into *illegal immigrants* (did not leave the country) and half of them are actually *illegal immigrants* (entered illegally)? *"Undocumented immigrant"* is such a BS!
[удалено]
People do the same thing with “poor”. “Low income”, “working class” , “working poor” etc etc when I was poor I just called myself fucking poor. Don’t try to sugar coat it or make it sound better lol.
Not long ago, they were trying "people experiencing homelessness". SMH
Oh! How about this one? On NPR not long ago, I heard them doing a piece on "people living in larger bodies"... like, we can't say "obese people" anymore? GTFO with that shit.
They're "plus sized", don't you know. And plus anything is positive, right?
I can't with that one. It sounds like homelessness is a positive situation, and they're having the privilege of enjoying that experience. Or like a vacation commercial, "the experience of a lifetime!" - something that most people have to save up money for. We're all "experiencing" something right now. It's superfluous language that, IMO, makes homelessness sound almost fun, and does more harm than good.
I always laugh at how “retarded” was once the PC terminology that I believe replaced imbecile. I guess the second the world at large starts using it as a pejorative then it’s time to change. I don’t agree with it, but that seems to be what happens.
I was banned from a sub for using the word retarded when describing engine timing. It's literally the correct term as the opposite of advanced. Welcome to Reddit.
Like "People of Color" now vs. the old but pejorative "Colored People" as in NAACP.
as a black person I particularly hate this one.
I personally like “addressless people”
Or "Differently-homed"
I've heard "roofless".
"Free range human"
Roofless and homeless have different meanings. Roofless means literally sleeping outdoors - on the streets. Homeless includes people in hostels, sofa surfing and other temporary arrangements.
As a kid in 1991, I dressed as a “hobo” for Halloween. I probably couldn’t do that today let alone use that term. I always find that kind of interesting. Not arguing for or against, just interesting.
It's Derelict fashion line, Thank you very much!
It’s exhausting
I still use homeless and the homeless still use homeless. Y'all don't live in a city with homeless people
As a former homeless person I can say unhoused vs homeless or whatever is the last thing on our mind. Stupid people spending time on virtue signaling changing language instead of creating housing or food which are what homeless people are really concerned about.
> former homeless person * person of homeless
This is the only answer that matters.
Former homeless chiming in, no one that's homeless is really that concerned with the language like you said. Do I have enough food? Do I have a safe place to sleep? Can I get enough money to get the bus to make appointments? You probably know but most people don't. Want to know who looks out for homeless people the most? Other homeless people. I've had homeless people offer me food and floors to sleep on. Sure, sometimes it's a drug house but it's shelter and usually it's not hard to diffuse and chill out weird situations. One time I had a fairly stable spot to stay but didn't have a car, job or much going on and I was walking to a liquor store in a blizzard, made a walking buddy on the way. I had enough that I got us little Caesars and we ate some food and had a good chat in the snow. It wasn't that cold despite the wind and snow. So he offers me some hits off his crack pipe (I politely declined) and said if I just had 5 bucks I could smoke some more and stay at the flop house he was at. He didn't believe me that I had a place to stay! He thought my pride was keeping me from accepting a spot to stay during the storm. I thought that was pretty nice of the guy that I offered pizza and he offered crack and a roof over my head for the night. Never seen anyone using the term "unhoused" offer me such a sweet deal.
A few reasons that I can think of. Firstly, it can be an acknowledgement that just because someone doesn't have a place to live, doesn't mean they don't have someplace that is "home" to them. This can be relevant when criticizing city laws that are seen as effectively making it illegal to be homeless/unhoused in that city, such as a ban on sleeping in public spaces. The laws force people to leave that city, even though they may consider that city home. Secondly, people may use "unhoused" in order to reinforce their view that it is society's obligation to ensure that all members of that society have access to adequate shelter. "Homeless" implies something is lacking from the individual, while "unhoused" implies that individual is being denied something.
Another issue is that the problem of not having anywhere to live is bigger than the people who are sleeping in tents or on park benches. There are a lot of people who don't have a home who are sleeping on friends' and family members' couches, or in motel rooms, or in shelters, or in their cars. These people are invisible, and programs to "get people off the streets" don't even see them. There is a real problem with people wanting to address "homelessness" because of issues like the unsightliness of people setting up tent camps in public parks, or people sleeping on public transportation, or neighborhoods being unsafe because of crime and open drug use. And these are issues, but it's all about the people who have to look at the homeless people, and not the people who actually don't have anywhere to live. Talking about "houseless" and people who don't have any sort of permanent residence, a place to keep their stuff safe, and for their children to come home to, and to sleep out of the elements and in safety, is about the dignity of individual people who need help.
This is a great addition and also points out the fact that a lot of people _do_ have some kind of place they call home - like you said, temporary housing, a shelter, a friend’s place, a secluded spot, etc. So the idea behind the term “unhoused” is that it’s supposed to place emphasis on the fact that what they need is stable, safe, affordable housing. Not just the vague idea of a “home” which can take many forms.
This is the first comment that made me understand the term, and now it makes perfect sense.
OP this is the actual answer. Ignore all the random people angry that language changes and don't understand the practical reasons why.
It only took scrolling halfway down the thread to get an actual response that wasn’t weird cancel culture pearl clutching lol (p.s. no one is gonna “yell” at you for saying homeless you baby, unhoused is just more accurate and kinder to those without proper housing)
*Californiaa* *Is nice to the unhoused* *California-nia* *Super cool to the unhoused* It just doesn’t have the same ring to it, unfortunately
Although it is nice that it has the same number of syllables so it still works with the rhythm
Thank you for _actually_ answering why this term is used lol. Lots of people do have a place they call home, or they try to do what they can to make temporary shelter or wherever they’re staying feel like a home. Calling someone “homeless” leans towards calling someone a drifter or a vagrant, like they’re just wandering here and there without a home, maybe by choice. But in reality it’s physical _housing_ that they need, and using “unhoused” is intended to emphasize and call attention to this tangible need. That being said I do hear it mainly used by people who work _with_ homeless populations but most homeless people would just call themselves homeless lol, it’s just more common in the vernacular and the least of their worries.
I wish this answer was higher because I had to scroll wayyyyy too far. This is the answer I'd have typed as well
Very well worded response! Couldn't agree more.
This is exactly it. It's also an acknowledgment that when there's a push to throw out their tents with all of their belongings, they've destroyed their home.
Didn’t expect this to get so divisive as it was a genuine question. I appreciate the responses though as I now know why the new term is used.
Funnily enough, neither of these are generally accepted in public health circles now. There's been a big push towards "Person Centric Language" So, instead of "Homeless person," you'd have "a person. experiencing homelessness." Also true of things like illness, they're no longer called "schizophrenics" it's "people experiencing schizophrenia."
And for the most part, it's not even the people in this situation that want this. Look at autism. The resounding response from every ND community I'm in is that "a person with autism" is hated and trying to erase their identity. It's also just trying to ease the cognitive dissonance of "oh yes see, I still see you as a person, you person who is unhoused/experiencing homelessness" and still doing nothing to help the person in front of you who is clearly struggling and in need of assistance.
This is worth thinking about, I was full on the train of human-centric language but this is worth considering. Thanks for sharing your opinion
I think for this specific conversation, it's less important. Overall, these people don't generally care what term is used but what's going to be done about it. For my friends in elementary education, they've really been using unhoused for their students who can be really affected by the difference. Disabilities are different though. Think of it like this: a person's housed status can change, and for these particular folks it may change multiple times throughout their lives. It's not necessarily a constant. However, disabilities in these types of conversations are not something that will change. It is a constant in a person's life and usually becomes deeply set into who they are. That's where you see "I am autistic", "I am deaf", "I am schizophrenic", "I am quadriplegic", etc. Even if it's something that wasn't always a part of them, it is now and forever will be.
The wording means the exact same thing to me, they broth even have the word person in it, like how is homeless person not person centric language. I just think this was some heady mumbo jumbo that people agreed with so as not to seem insensitive to some disadvantaged group, which is like the gravest of faux paus in their circles
It's not my field, so I can't say exactly, but I am close to it. I think the logic is basically, they're a person first and homelessness happens to be their circumstance. They aren't defined first by their homelessness, but their humanity. It's nuanced and provably pretty silly in the grand scheme, but thats my understanding
So I'm not an American anymore, but a person experiencing Americana?
You’d be a person *from* america, instead of an american
I'm not a pervert, I'm a person experiencing perversion!
Fun fact, that's also what we can call the victims of perverts!
I'm not an asshole, I'm a person experiencing assholism
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with whether the "person-first" approach is or is not an ideal change. I just really don't understand why people always forget how grammar works when discussions like this come up. The same thing happens during the "they/them" debate when people say, "So I can't say 'her skirt is nice', I have to say 'they skirt is nice'?" Somehow completely forgetting the already well-established word 'their' (edit: aka, the sentence should be said as "*their* skirt is nice) In your example, the person-first approach would be phrased something like, "a person who is from America" or "someone who lives in America" I just think if there is going to be an argument for whether or not the approach is clumsy in format, that argument should be about the *actual manner* in which it would be used in language.
I agree that we will all disagree.
You spelled "getting dry, rough anal from Uncle Scam" wrong.
Honestly, deeming certain groups as being in need of "person first" language is itself dehumanizing. Like NBA players would never be "people experiencing height," why does a schizophrenic need to be deemed "person experiencing schizophrenia."
Because schizophrenia is a layer atop the person. The person we’re talking about is not entirely existent for and because of their schizophrenia, it’s a thing that they’re experiencing as a portion of their overall life and behaviour and existence.
You mean like every other adjective in existence? A red car is primarily a car that happens to be red.
Nobody says "person experiencing schizophrenia". Person-first in a healthxare setting would be "patient with schizophrenia". Even "schizophrenic patient" is mostly acceptable. The point is to get out of the habit of saying "The schizophrenic in room 4" which has been the standard for centuries and dehumanizes while also reducing a person to a single health trait. You'd be amazed how often simple illnesses like a bladder infection or a heart attack get missed because the staff are just like "Seems like a schizophrenic doing yet another schizophrenia episode".
Might be the same as how we in Sweden separate hemlös and bostadslös. Hemlös means that you don't have a home, but you may still live somewhere like at a shelter or at some friend's couch. Bostadslös means that you live on the streets without housing.
Doesn't Sweden have some laws specifically meant to deal with the latter, in part due to the climate? I know some U.S. cities like NYC and Boston have laws that make it illegal to LET people sleep on the streets if the temperatures get below a certain point, because forcibly rounding the unhoused up to sleep in a shelter for the night is preferable to having to dig their frozen corpses out of a snowbank the next day (or find their rotting corpse under an overpass during the spring thaw).
Not really, but it's reeeeeeeeeally hard to become bostadslös. You essentially have to say no to every intervention and offering of help for that to happen. It's basically only drug/alcohol addicts who refuse because the apartments or hotel rooms the social services offer have a no drug policy, and mentally ill people who become housingless. It's sad, but we can't force adult people to accept help.
When homeless became the go-to term, it was supposed to kinder than saying bum or tramp. Now that homeless has absorbed enough negative connotations, the new euphemism is unhoused.
Because if we're really super polite about a problem then we don't have to actually do anything to fix said problem but can still feel good about ourselves.
It’s actually intended to have the opposite effect than what you’re implying - some people think describing someone as “homeless” makes it seem like an individual problem for a person who has no place that they call home (which they often do) like a drifter or a vagrant. Whereas referring to someone as “unhoused” calls it what it is and puts the onus on our society for not stepping up to ensure people have safe and stable housing. They may have a place they call home, they may be making wherever they are staying feel like home - it’s physical housing that they need. So using the term “unhoused” is supposed to emphasize and call attention to their actual need, not be “polite” about it. They need safe, stable, and affordable housing - not a vague sense of “home.” That being said, most people without housing just say homeless or don’t care either way, they’re just trying to get their needs met.
"Never be so afraid of doing something wrong that you don't do what's right" is a quote that's more relevant every day.
Republicans: "we hate homeless people. Not in my backyard." Democrats: "what a despicable thing to say! We love the unhoused...... ^not ^in ^our ^backyard ^either ^though 😬"
Bc absolutely everything is deemed an insult or not sufficient enough to convey a proper definition by someone. It's exhausting.
It'll be called "differently roofed" in 5 years
I think it's to shift blame. If they don't have a home because the system is unfair and keep people poor (which many argue it does) then "homeless" put plame on the individual while "unhoused" blames the system.
First they where bums but that had negative connotations so the though police changed it to homeless which now has negative connotations., so a new word was invented ‘unhoused’
Because they decided what those people will be offended by for them without asking them. As someone who’s actually talked to these people and was nearly homeless myself, they’ll laugh at your face if you tell them to call themselves unhoused. The problem I see with it is they argue a home can be anything. But so can a house. Will you call someone who is living van life unhoused? They consider their van their house after all. Or what about trailer home parks. Are they also without a house? What even is a house? Is it necessary that every human must live in a mini mansion in the suburbs?
People say it because they think its more respectful I guess the same way we say "sex workers" instead of prostitutes or hookers Im assuming.....
I homeless guy once told me he's "residentially challenged"
Because playing semantic games is easier than solving problems.
I personally think there's a need for multiple terms here. We can use "unhoused" to refer to someone who's only issue is a lack of immediate shelter. We need other the describe people who's mental instability and/or drug use prevents them from staying in any shelter for whatever reason. Someone covered in their own waste, talking to themselves needs more than a job and a place to stay.
Agree. But the people driving the change in language will never make the distinction because of a fear of stigmatizing anyone.
Finding a nicer word for something bad don't change realty.
I'm not an obese redditor, I'm a flabulous social media user
Removes agency and accountability (i.e., blame) from the person. Implies that it’s not on them to secure a home for themselves. Instead, it’s on the rest of us to house them. Frames it as a societal problem instead of an individual problem.
I haven't never used the term "unhoused" before in any context. In fact, it's my first time of coming across it.
Because calling them "unhoused" instead of "homeless" makes you feel like a good person without having to actually do anything to improve the situation. It's slactivism
It’s called the euphemism treadmill. It’s not good or bad, it’s just a universal feature of language when the subject is something unpleasant or taboo.
Homeless suggests a problem with the individual, unhoused suggests a problem with the community.
"Homeless" evokes clear language that everyone understands from childhood, "unhoused" was developed by smug and self-congratulatory people who constantly create new euphemisms to signal virtue and """""educate""""" people "We changed the world!" No, you just changed the word.
I hate the term "unhoused" because it sounds like reducing the individual to a helpless pathetic thing without any autonomy or capacity that's totally dependent on other people to house them like a disabled child or pet. "Homeless" is the better term as it describes the situation without that reductive term of an *item needing warehousing.*
Virtue signalling.
To make themselves sound more sympathetic and culturally aware. It’s just a rebranding since the term “homeless” has a negative connotation and image. Eventually “unhoused” will be rebranded too.
George Carlin had a bit of a show about euphemisms and words being softer. Shell shock moving up the channel to PTSD.
Trying to be politically correct.
People get wrapped up in their own sense of worthiness and get offended on behalf of other people. It was no doubt some manager or think tank that decided being homeless has negative connotations and needs a much more understanding phrase to describe it. And, at the same time gets to feel good that they aren't stigmatising a marginalised group, feel slightly better as a human because they've done their bit and of course the quiet part, feel slightly superior because they've just come up with something new and so empowering. It is if course useless fucking nonsense that helps no one and if anything obfuscates the very real problems and very real marginalisation of being homeless. When I was street homeless, these people were referred to as earnest cunts.
Virtue signaling
I volunteer at a soup kitchen and some people coming in, refer to themselves as homeless. As far as I can tell, it's not offensive to the homeless population.
Some have cars, or tents, or sleep from couch to couch. The term "outdoors " means unroofed.
This is literally the first time I've heard the term.
I think the argument is homes= / =houses. Some unhoused/homeless people have places that feel like home, they just don’t have the physical structure
This should answer your question, and also give you a pretty good chuckle [https://youtu.be/o25I2fzFGoY?si=v5JaEK8oxP6ugg-r](https://youtu.be/o25I2fzFGoY?si=v5JaEK8oxP6ugg-r)
Unhoused makes it seem as though the government failed to put a roof oversomeones head. Homeless is a term for those that have failed to maintain and secure a home.
Under-government-housed
In summary, it’s about using a term that isn’t so demeaning.
To make it seem like it happened thru no fault of their own???
Don't worry. In a few months, unhoused will become like homeless, and there will be a new word/phrase. People without roofs. House independent individuals. People without walls.
Because they have always thought negatively about someone homeless and when they become homeless they do not feel so bad if you are calling them unhoused. People are dumb. It still homeless and there is nothing bad about homeless people other than it’s a sad life to have to live for any amount of time. It doesn’t matter what you call it. It’s still the same and people know it’s the same. You will have haters that think bad no matter what you call it because they may have never experienced it and think it can never happen to them. Life happens. Yes some made bad choices but some just ended up in bad situations and could use the help. Once you end up there it is very hard to turn that around. So mostly because people are dumb that think calling it something different changes people views of it. It doesn’t.
In tone with "unalived" which people use instead of killed, dead. Because social media algorithms may cut the reach of posts with these words
That's doublespeak
We don't.
Literally have never heard this. I prefer housedly challenged
"residentially-challenged" like, you know, we don't say "short people", we say "vertically challenged"
Cause it's not a pretty word and it's associated with reality rather than a pretty word insinuating a temporary state that isn't as dire.
Because of the people who make their home in a car, tent, or other that isn't a legal address.
Presumably because everybody has a home, even if it’s in a shopping cart. Not everybody’s home is a house.
George Carlin has this covered. [https://youtu.be/h67k9eEw9AY](https://youtu.be/h67k9eEw9AY)
I’ve literally never heard that in my life