Can someone explain to me “homeless” vs “unhoused”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s the left trying to control language. Rule of thumb: If someone is telling you what to say or think, it’s probably a lefty.

The party trying to control what people think by banning the teaching of history? Hint: Not the left.

Hint: Republicans aren’t trying to ban the teaching of history. We want MORE history taught. We need to teach about the history of racism and oppression in this country. The Left conflates history with CRT.

Hint: learn the difference (and teach it to your kids!)

Right. And the Civil War wasn't about slavery. It was about States' Rights.

Yes, that's correct, at least in part. Can you really not hold two thoughts in your head at one time? Does everything have to be so black and white with you?

It was about a state's "rights" to hold another human being in unpaid bondage. Do you deny this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you asked a homeless person if they are unhoused they probably wouldn't have the intellectual capacity to understand it's the new term for homeless, and probably answer no.

Just like if you housed them in St. Elizabeth's, they wouldn't know the difference between there and an apartment.

The prefix un and suffix less mean the same. House and home have the same meaning. It's that simple. Unhoused is the same as homeless.

I can't imagine a homeless person using unhoused in a sentence.

Seriously it sounds like you do not know many homeless/ unhoused people. I have. Many of them are brilliant. There are many homeless/ unhoused people now due to real estate affordable home crisis, being homeless could happen to anyone.

If they were brilliant they’d be able to make rent.

Drugs, alcohol and mental problems are why they are that way

See you have not met and talked with them …


Through volunteering at programs to help people in transition out of homelessness, I have met:
A very bright and ambitious Homeless single mother who had been a corporate hot shot but had an extremely difficult pregnancy, could not work or even stand, lost her medical insurance and then excessive medical bills resulted in her losing her home. She is on her feet again now but it took a long time when you have a baby and health challenges;
Former military vets who found it hard to adjust to civilian life after serving in wars where they saw and participated in horrific violence;
Many children who work hard to keep up with school work despite not having a permanent address;
Many single mothers and several single fathers who work hard to create more promising futures for their children. It is very hard to take care of young children, work enough hours to pay bills, and hold down jobs as single parents of young children.

Many of them love animals and miss having pets.

When I meet homeless/ unhoused people, I strongly believe there but for the grace of God go I. They are people with feelings, dreams and challenges just like the rest of us housed people.

Many are schizophrenic and tell tall tales.

Really a corporate hotshot with no savings, no family and no friends

+1 I had a mentally ill neighbor who was causing problems for me. The building concerige had a part time nursing job at one of the major hospitals in DC. He said telling tales was part of the neighbor's disease.

I observed a homeless vetern in the ER having a violent outburst with a nurse. No he shouldn't be homeless, but he doesn't belong in an apartment. A mental hospital could actual help and house him safely all at once.

[Anonymous]

euphemism

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s the left trying to control language. Rule of thumb: If someone is telling you what to say or think, it’s probably a lefty.

And yet you weirdos have issue with the word “unhoused.” No one demanded that you used the word. But you’re offended by other people using it!

Do you not see how insane you are?

I’m not offended by it in the least, say whatever you want. Maybe no one is demanding it now, but soon saying “homeless” will be considered offensive and we will all be told, implicitly or explicitly, that we can’t say it. Just like we can’t say “eating disorder,” it’s now “disordered eating.” And we can’t call it “looting.” And we can’t say “pedophile,” it’s “minor attracted person.” And we can’t say “minority” it needs to be “under represented minority (URM).” All this nonsense is coming from the left.

Except you can say literally those things. I'm serious.

Here's the NIMH using the term "eating disorder": https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/eating-disorders. Here's CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/04/health/eating-disorders-children-covid-wellness/index.html. Here's the NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/28/well/family/teens-eating-disorders.html

Here's "looting" in the NYT (in an article that's very leftist): https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/18/opinion/george-floyd-protests-looting.html Here's NPR: https://www.npr.org/2020/08/11/901219045/chicago-authorities-aim-to-prevent-another-night-of-looting. Here's Joe Biden using the word: https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/31/politics/joe-biden-pittsburgh-violence-speech/index.html

"Minor attracted person" is very rare (it's basically a term invented by one person who promptly got forced out of their position for it), and even in discussing it, the media uses the term "pedophile" and "pedophilia": https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/03/virginia-college-professor-set-off-firestorm-about-pedophilia/

Here's NPR saying "minority" last year: https://www.npr.org/2021/09/02/1033727595/attacks-on-minorities-are-at-their-highest-level-in-12-years-fbi-reports. Here's the NYT a couple years ago: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/06/business/economy/jobs-report-minorities.html

That's from a few minutes Googling. All the terms you're convinced you "can't say" and they're all over the mainstream media including from voices on the left. You seem to be mistaking the fact that possibly someone somewhere will object to a term to it being forbidden. It's not. You just have to deal with the fact that people might be object.

I said this upthread, but I say homeless, and I work with this population. I have reasons I say homeless and I'm confident in my choice. I also don't care that other people say unhoused and if someone objected I could explain my reasons, and I'd be happy to discuss it with them. My language isn't controlled by other people's objections and neither is yours, why do you pretend like it is?

PP, I had the same reaction to those crazy assertions but wouldn’t have taken the time to actually disprove them. Thumbs up to you! I also appreciate your sharing your perspective on working with the population in question. Sometimes trying to share actual facts on DCUM feels like shouting into the void when so many seem so invested in just volleying back and forth with personal opinions. Just wanted to let you know you’re appreciated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Homeless implies the individual did or didn't do something that resulted in their not having a home.

Unhoused implies that society did or didn't do something that resulted in the individual not having a home.

How you approach solving a problem depends on how you define the problem.

This. I would also add that homeless seems more like a permanent trait of a person, whereas unhoused is more of a situation that the person is in, which can be changed. The language is more growth-minded.

+1 both these answers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s the left trying to control language. Rule of thumb: If someone is telling you what to say or think, it’s probably a lefty.

The party trying to control what people think by banning the teaching of history? Hint: Not the left.

Hint: Republicans aren’t trying to ban the teaching of history. We want MORE history taught. We need to teach about the history of racism and oppression in this country. The Left conflates history with CRT.

Hint: learn the difference (and teach it to your kids!)

Right. And the Civil War wasn't about slavery. It was about States' Rights.

Yes, that's correct, at least in part. Can you really not hold two thoughts in your head at one time? Does everything have to be so black and white with you?

It was about a state's "rights" to hold another human being in unpaid bondage. Do you deny this?

Do you really still believe that every southerner was an evil racist and Abe Lincoln was a knight in shining armor saving the poor black people out of the goodness of his heart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s the left trying to control language. Rule of thumb: If someone is telling you what to say or think, it’s probably a lefty.

And yet you weirdos have issue with the word “unhoused.” No one demanded that you used the word. But you’re offended by other people using it!

Do you not see how insane you are?

I’m not offended by it in the least, say whatever you want. Maybe no one is demanding it now, but soon saying “homeless” will be considered offensive and we will all be told, implicitly or explicitly, that we can’t say it. Just like we can’t say “eating disorder,” it’s now “disordered eating.” And we can’t call it “looting.” And we can’t say “pedophile,” it’s “minor attracted person.” And we can’t say “minority” it needs to be “under represented minority (URM).” All this nonsense is coming from the left.

You're nuts and need to be deprogrammed from your addiction to rightwing outrage media. Sir, step away from the podcast and Substack....

First, don’t assume my gender. I’m not a sir. Second, I don’t consume any of the media you listed, this is from my personal experience and from reading NYT, WaPo, etc. Third, nothing I said was factually incorrect, but I get that you call people “crazy” when you can’t refute them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s the left trying to control language. Rule of thumb: If someone is telling you what to say or think, it’s probably a lefty.

And yet you weirdos have issue with the word “unhoused.” No one demanded that you used the word. But you’re offended by other people using it!

Do you not see how insane you are?

I’m not offended by it in the least, say whatever you want. Maybe no one is demanding it now, but soon saying “homeless” will be considered offensive and we will all be told, implicitly or explicitly, that we can’t say it. Just like we can’t say “eating disorder,” it’s now “disordered eating.” And we can’t call it “looting.” And we can’t say “pedophile,” it’s “minor attracted person.” And we can’t say “minority” it needs to be “under represented minority (URM).” All this nonsense is coming from the left.

Except you can say literally those things. I'm serious.

Here's the NIMH using the term "eating disorder": https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/eating-disorders. Here's CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/04/health/eating-disorders-children-covid-wellness/index.html. Here's the NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/28/well/family/teens-eating-disorders.html

Here's "looting" in the NYT (in an article that's very leftist): https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/18/opinion/george-floyd-protests-looting.html Here's NPR: https://www.npr.org/2020/08/11/901219045/chicago-authorities-aim-to-prevent-another-night-of-looting. Here's Joe Biden using the word: https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/31/politics/joe-biden-pittsburgh-violence-speech/index.html

"Minor attracted person" is very rare (it's basically a term invented by one person who promptly got forced out of their position for it), and even in discussing it, the media uses the term "pedophile" and "pedophilia": https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/03/virginia-college-professor-set-off-firestorm-about-pedophilia/

Here's NPR saying "minority" last year: https://www.npr.org/2021/09/02/1033727595/attacks-on-minorities-are-at-their-highest-level-in-12-years-fbi-reports. Here's the NYT a couple years ago: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/06/business/economy/jobs-report-minorities.html

That's from a few minutes Googling. All the terms you're convinced you "can't say" and they're all over the mainstream media including from voices on the left. You seem to be mistaking the fact that possibly someone somewhere will object to a term to it being forbidden. It's not. You just have to deal with the fact that people might be object.

I said this upthread, but I say homeless, and I work with this population. I have reasons I say homeless and I'm confident in my choice. I also don't care that other people say unhoused and if someone objected I could explain my reasons, and I'd be happy to discuss it with them. My language isn't controlled by other people's objections and neither is yours, why do you pretend like it is?

Get back to me in 5 years. I work in academia and I can promise you those terms are changing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you’re cool with language never changing, don’t be a hypocrite; when you go to work tomorrow, be sure to ask your boss to call you “doll,” or “broad,” or “girl,” or even “baby.”

I'm fine with being called "employee" or by my title. But it would be weird being called, "person who works here." Language can change, but changes should make sense.

To many men, the change in language away from doll, broad, girl, etc. didn’t make sense, they were fine with continuing to use those terms.

The problem is that the changes are never ending.

Welcome to language; that’s the way it works and always has.

Partly. But it also is the way the supposedly "woke" try to trip up everyone they think is "unwoke." Hear us, please: we're getting tired of the games. You aren't two any longer. This isn't cute. We want you to understand that changing the verbiage doesn't change the problem and it doesn't result in a ... result. To achieve change, you youngun's are going to have to get off your tushes and do some actual work. The time for your endless talk is done. Now we want to see some action.

Oh but this is so much easier, leaves time for Tik Tok videos and is a measure for judging other people too!

This is true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Enjoy the newspeak, citizen! Report to the nearest reeducation camp to have your thoughts adjusted.

100%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you asked a homeless person if they are unhoused they probably wouldn't have the intellectual capacity to understand it's the new term for homeless, and probably answer no.

Just like if you housed them in St. Elizabeth's, they wouldn't know the difference between there and an apartment.

The prefix un and suffix less mean the same. House and home have the same meaning. It's that simple. Unhoused is the same as homeless.

I can't imagine a homeless person using unhoused in a sentence.

Seriously it sounds like you do not know many homeless/ unhoused people. I have. Many of them are brilliant. There are many homeless/ unhoused people now due to real estate affordable home crisis, being homeless could happen to anyone.

If they were brilliant they’d be able to make rent.

Drugs, alcohol and mental problems are why they are that way

See you have not met and talked with them …


Through volunteering at programs to help people in transition out of homelessness, I have met:
A very bright and ambitious Homeless single mother who had been a corporate hot shot but had an extremely difficult pregnancy, could not work or even stand, lost her medical insurance and then excessive medical bills resulted in her losing her home. She is on her feet again now but it took a long time when you have a baby and health challenges;
Former military vets who found it hard to adjust to civilian life after serving in wars where they saw and participated in horrific violence;
Many children who work hard to keep up with school work despite not having a permanent address;
Many single mothers and several single fathers who work hard to create more promising futures for their children. It is very hard to take care of young children, work enough hours to pay bills, and hold down jobs as single parents of young children.

Many of them love animals and miss having pets.

When I meet homeless/ unhoused people, I strongly believe there but for the grace of God go I. They are people with feelings, dreams and challenges just like the rest of us housed people.

Many are schizophrenic and tell tall tales.

Really a corporate hotshot with no savings, no family and no friends

+1 I had a mentally ill neighbor who was causing problems for me. The building concerige had a part time nursing job at one of the major hospitals in DC. He said telling tales was part of the neighbor's disease.

I observed a homeless vetern in the ER having a violent outburst with a nurse. No he shouldn't be homeless, but he doesn't belong in an apartment. A mental hospital could actual help and house him safely all at once.

I’ve done a lot of legal aid work for the homeless (they really would prefer you give them a dime rather than not and get outraged on their behalf). There’s always a teller of tall tales. I dont blame them. But you can’t take them at face value.

There are so many who will say anything just for a little bit of attention, because of severe untreated mental illnesses, because they like titillating the white people from the suburbs etc etc

Sad. But they’re beyond help