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

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Words get retired because of stigma and a new term is adopted until it also eventually becomes stigmatized.

Hobo, bum >>>>homeless>>>>unhoused>>>>???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Same thing, different name. Virtue signaling with language - indicates one is in the “in-group”.

+1. Using terms like "unhoused" indicates that the speaker/ writer is aware of changes in the common vocabulary that have occurred in the last 30 minutes, but that we are all expected to be thoroughly versed on. Also a great tool to be used for judging others.

I love your answer. It's all about superiority over those less in the know.

Thank you. It's not only less in the know, it's posed superiority over those who refuse to go along with the left's "new vocabulary" on many topics.

Funny that the only superiority and judgment here is coming from the people who dislike the term unhoused.

I hear both and tend to use homeless (because it's how I hear the homeless families I work with identify themselves), and I've never once gotten pushback for it (and again, I work with homeless families professionally)

+1

Any reason to pose as a victim, but never a reason to look a little deeper at how language can shape a call to action.

Ohhhhh.... so now you're actually admitting it! Language is no longer used simply to communicate; it's now a purpose to "shape a call to action." Whose action? Who decides what the action is?

There you have it, folks. The left's thinking on perfect display.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Same thing, different name. Virtue signaling with language - indicates one is in the “in-group”.

+1. Using terms like "unhoused" indicates that the speaker/ writer is aware of changes in the common vocabulary that have occurred in the last 30 minutes, but that we are all expected to be thoroughly versed on. Also a great tool to be used for judging others.

I love your answer. It's all about superiority over those less in the know.

Thank you. It's not only less in the know, it's posed superiority over those who refuse to go along with the left's "new vocabulary" on many topics.

Funny that the only superiority and judgment here is coming from the people who dislike the term unhoused.

I hear both and tend to use homeless (because it's how I hear the homeless families I work with identify themselves), and I've never once gotten pushback for it (and again, I work with homeless families professionally)

+1

Any reason to pose as a victim, but never a reason to look a little deeper at how language can shape a call to action.

Ohhhhh.... so now you're actually admitting it! Language is no longer used simply to communicate; it's now a purpose to "shape a call to action." Whose action? Who decides what the action is?

There you have it, folks. The left's thinking on perfect display.

DP. Are you against the evolution of language? Would you prefer we still use the N-word? I bet you do not think it’s ok.

[Anonymous]

Person first language means that you consider the person first, then describe the situation. Person who uses a wheelchair, not “she is in a wheelchair”. Person with a disability, not a cripple. Person who is undocumented, not an illegal alien. Person who is unhoused, not a homeless person etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Same thing, different name. Virtue signaling with language - indicates one is in the “in-group”.

+1. Using terms like "unhoused" indicates that the speaker/ writer is aware of changes in the common vocabulary that have occurred in the last 30 minutes, but that we are all expected to be thoroughly versed on. Also a great tool to be used for judging others.

I love your answer. It's all about superiority over those less in the know.

Thank you. It's not only less in the know, it's posed superiority over those who refuse to go along with the left's "new vocabulary" on many topics.

Funny that the only superiority and judgment here is coming from the people who dislike the term unhoused.

I hear both and tend to use homeless (because it's how I hear the homeless families I work with identify themselves), and I've never once gotten pushback for it (and again, I work with homeless families professionally)

+1

Any reason to pose as a victim, but never a reason to look a little deeper at how language can shape a call to action.

Ohhhhh.... so now you're actually admitting it! Language is no longer used simply to communicate; it's now a purpose to "shape a call to action." Whose action? Who decides what the action is?

There you have it, folks. The left's thinking on perfect display.

Well, the folks who changed global warming to climate change, and estate tax to death tax, also intended to change people's actions at the ballot box. And they sure weren't lefties. (climate change, the idea was, is less scary than global warming)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Same thing, different name. Virtue signaling with language - indicates one is in the “in-group”.

+1. Using terms like "unhoused" indicates that the speaker/ writer is aware of changes in the common vocabulary that have occurred in the last 30 minutes, but that we are all expected to be thoroughly versed on. Also a great tool to be used for judging others.

I love your answer. It's all about superiority over those less in the know.

Thank you. It's not only less in the know, it's posed superiority over those who refuse to go along with the left's "new vocabulary" on many topics.

Funny that the only superiority and judgment here is coming from the people who dislike the term unhoused.

I hear both and tend to use homeless (because it's how I hear the homeless families I work with identify themselves), and I've never once gotten pushback for it (and again, I work with homeless families professionally)

+1

Any reason to pose as a victim, but never a reason to look a little deeper at how language can shape a call to action.

Ohhhhh.... so now you're actually admitting it! Language is no longer used simply to communicate; it's now a purpose to "shape a call to action." Whose action? Who decides what the action is?

There you have it, folks. The left's thinking on perfect display.

DP. Are you against the evolution of language? Would you prefer we still use the N-word? I bet you do not think it’s ok.

Morality policing at its finest. Please let's let false equivalency rule the day.

How is the use of a degrading, derogatory slur on the same level as describing a factual situation, especially when there is very little difference actually between homeless and unhoused? Person first would be a person without a home, putting emphasis on the individual's humanity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To me these sound like the same thing. I want to understand the push towards “unhoused”. I feel like ultimately if we aren’t doing anything to help these people, why are we harping on words?

I agree in general that actions speak far louder than words. Using one name or another is not important if the underlying problem and causes are getting worse.

To your subtle phrasing point - I the difference in terms is trying to make the point that people in transition out of homelessness/ unhoused people are people with feelings. We all need a sense of home and will create that for ourselves in different ways whether it is a mansion or a shanty under a bypass. There is a severe housing crisis in the US especially in big cities. The biggest subgroup of u housed people in DC are children. It is extremely difficult for many single mothers facing systematic racism and inter generational Poverty to work, pay rent, utilities, food, clothes, medicine etc plus there is not enough low income housing.

Words do matter. They are how we communicate our thoughts and feelings with each other. Language is living and evolving like all of us.

Our church collaborates with local organization that works to give families in transition out of homelessness supports and skills they need to secure housing, employment and educational stability for their client families. Obviously, such piece meal efforts won’t solve the expanding crisis. We need more affordable housing, affordable Child care and safer short term shelters that are often dangerous for women and children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Words get retired because of stigma and a new term is adopted until it also eventually becomes stigmatized.

Hobo, bum >>>>homeless>>>>unhoused>>>>???

Yes. Congratulations. Welcome to language.

moron --> retarded --> learning disabled

Same thing happened with the "n-word" and other combinations of letters and sounds that had or took on derogatory meanings. That is what language does, then the people who use it care about the effects of words.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Same thing, different name. Virtue signaling with language - indicates one is in the “in-group”.

+1. Using terms like "unhoused" indicates that the speaker/ writer is aware of changes in the common vocabulary that have occurred in the last 30 minutes, but that we are all expected to be thoroughly versed on. Also a great tool to be used for judging others.

I love your answer. It's all about superiority over those less in the know.

Thank you. It's not only less in the know, it's posed superiority over those who refuse to go along with the left's "new vocabulary" on many topics.

Funny that the only superiority and judgment here is coming from the people who dislike the term unhoused.

I hear both and tend to use homeless (because it's how I hear the homeless families I work with identify themselves), and I've never once gotten pushback for it (and again, I work with homeless families professionally)

+1

Any reason to pose as a victim, but never a reason to look a little deeper at how language can shape a call to action.

Ohhhhh.... so now you're actually admitting it! Language is no longer used simply to communicate; it's now a purpose to "shape a call to action." Whose action? Who decides what the action is?

There you have it, folks. The left's thinking on perfect display.

DP. Are you against the evolution of language? Would you prefer we still use the N-word? I bet you do not think it’s ok.

That horrific word is, and always has been, a pejorative slur against a group of people. "Homeless" is simply a factual description of a person's situation. S/he is literally home - less, as in, without a home.

[Anonymous]

^^ oh, and they also like the term "ballot harvesting", which refers to an activity legal in nearly all states (delivering an absentee ballot for someone else) but supports the big lie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Same thing, different name. Virtue signaling with language - indicates one is in the “in-group”.

+1. Using terms like "unhoused" indicates that the speaker/ writer is aware of changes in the common vocabulary that have occurred in the last 30 minutes, but that we are all expected to be thoroughly versed on. Also a great tool to be used for judging others.

I love your answer. It's all about superiority over those less in the know.

Thank you. It's not only less in the know, it's posed superiority over those who refuse to go along with the left's "new vocabulary" on many topics.

Funny that the only superiority and judgment here is coming from the people who dislike the term unhoused.

I hear both and tend to use homeless (because it's how I hear the homeless families I work with identify themselves), and I've never once gotten pushback for it (and again, I work with homeless families professionally)

+1

Any reason to pose as a victim, but never a reason to look a little deeper at how language can shape a call to action.

Ohhhhh.... so now you're actually admitting it! Language is no longer used simply to communicate; it's now a purpose to "shape a call to action." Whose action? Who decides what the action is?

There you have it, folks. The left's thinking on perfect display.

DP. Are you against the evolution of language? Would you prefer we still use the N-word? I bet you do not think it’s ok.

Morality policing at its finest. Please let's let false equivalency rule the day.

How is the use of a degrading, derogatory slur on the same level as describing a factual situation, especially when there is very little difference actually between homeless and unhoused? Person first would be a person without a home, putting emphasis on the individual's humanity.

Person experiencing homelessness is a pretty commonly used term with the same "it's virtue signaling!" objections from the same people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Words get retired because of stigma and a new term is adopted until it also eventually becomes stigmatized.

Hobo, bum >>>>homeless>>>>unhoused>>>>???

Yes. Congratulations. Welcome to language.

moron --> retarded --> learning disabled

Same thing happened with the "n-word" and other combinations of letters and sounds that had or took on derogatory meanings. That is what language does, then the people who use it care about the effects of words.

Moron, retarded, idiot are all medically conceived words.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To me these sound like the same thing. I want to understand the push towards “unhoused”. I feel like ultimately if we aren’t doing anything to help these people, why are we harping on words?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Words get retired because of stigma and a new term is adopted until it also eventually becomes stigmatized.

Hobo, bum >>>>homeless>>>>unhoused>>>>???

Yes. Congratulations. Welcome to language.

moron --> retarded --> learning disabled

Same thing happened with the "n-word" and other combinations of letters and sounds that had or took on derogatory meanings. That is what language does, then the people who use it care about the effects of words.

Moron, retarded, idiot are all medically conceived words.

Sure. And there was initially no stigma to them, because they were technical terms only. But then there was stigma, and language changed.

I'm not sure how much you want me to spell out the analogy to "homeless" and "unhoused" without sounding like I am being condescending.