Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

This...is just ridiculous.

What's next? Person who plays sports (not "athlete"), person who moved from another country (not "immigrant"), person who is addicted to alcohol (not "alcoholic"), person who lacks privilege (not "under-privileged"), person who doesn't have a job (not "unemployed"), etc....

Exactly. I am not a woman, I am a person with a vagina and uterus. Please refer to me as that moving forward.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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)

It’s 100% the left that came up with "climate change" once "global warming" was proven to be false. That way if anything happens (cooling or warming) they can be "right’

99.9% of scientists disagree with you that global warming is false. The evidence is now beyond dispute. Climate change and more extreme weather resulting in major storms, floods and fires is now a reality.

Lol, notice you switch from "global warming" to "climate change " in your answer. Climate change has always, and will always happen. The ‘sky is falling" people going on about how hot it will be in X years changed the words when that didn’t happen.

I'm sorry -- you are under the impression that the globe is not continuing to warm? Is that correct?




https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

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.

Exactly this. Thank you both for contributing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You should really think about that statement (bolded); it's an intelligent one. Did it ever occur to you that perhaps it is because your very position on the topic is condescending?

Oh, I'm trying my best. My deepest apologies for insulting your feelings.

You didn't insult me. But then, I don't live my life looking to conduct performative actions that are pretend solutions for real problems, and judging other people for not "caring" as much as I do.

Excellent. I am happy to let you keep being you, unscathed!

May all the world's potential problems be addressed so easily.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shelters, weekly motel rentals, living on a friend's couch, all unhoused but not homeless.

This seems the opposite of intuitive to me - those people are "housed" in some type of situation, but are "homeless" in that they lack their own permanent home.

Law enforcement, around here anyway, prefers "no fixed address" for these people.

Anonymous wrote: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.

This...is just ridiculous.

What's next? Person who plays sports (not "athlete"), person who moved from another country (not "immigrant"), person who is addicted to alcohol (not "alcoholic"), person who lacks privilege (not "under-privileged"), person who doesn't have a job (not "unemployed"), etc....

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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)

It’s 100% the left that came up with "climate change" once "global warming" was proven to be false. That way if anything happens (cooling or warming) they can be "right’

99.9% of scientists disagree with you that global warming is false. The evidence is now beyond dispute. Climate change and more extreme weather resulting in major storms, floods and fires is now a reality.

Lol, notice you switch from "global warming" to "climate change " in your answer. Climate change has always, and will always happen. The ‘sky is falling" people going on about how hot it will be in X years changed the words when that didn’t happen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shelters, weekly motel rentals, living on a friend's couch, all unhoused but not homeless.

Yes, they are. They lack a home.

+1
I agree.

Unhoused may just be the new politically correct term for “homeless.”
I have also heard the term “unsheltered individuals” as well too.

These terms tend to change as the world evolves.
Back when I was a kid - some people referred to homeless people as “hobos.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You should really think about that statement (bolded); it's an intelligent one. Did it ever occur to you that perhaps it is because your very position on the topic is condescending?

Oh, I'm trying my best. My deepest apologies for insulting your feelings.

You didn't insult me. But then, I don't live my life looking to conduct performative actions that are pretend solutions for real problems, and judging other people for not "caring" as much as I do.

This right here. It’s so effing annoying. Changing the language is literally helping no one.

Anonymous wrote:Shelters, weekly motel rentals, living on a friend's couch, all unhoused but not homeless.

This seems the opposite of intuitive to me - those people are "housed" in some type of situation, but are "homeless" in that they lack their own permanent home.

The more time you spend pointing fingers at other people for using the wrong words, the less time you can spend on being part of a viable solution. A lot of progressives I think are missing the point that the more they engage in language reshaping the more time they are spending reinforcing the status quo because everyone is distracted by the battle that results of their absolute morality.

Progressives = Religious Right

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You should really think about that statement (bolded); it's an intelligent one. Did it ever occur to you that perhaps it is because your very position on the topic is condescending?

Oh, I'm trying my best. My deepest apologies for insulting your feelings.

You didn't insult me. But then, I don't live my life looking to conduct performative actions that are pretend solutions for real problems, and judging other people for not "caring" as much as I do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You should really think about that statement (bolded); it's an intelligent one. Did it ever occur to you that perhaps it is because your very position on the topic is condescending?

Oh, I'm trying my best. My deepest apologies for insulting your feelings.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So, logically, we can expect unhoused to be a pejorative in the near future?

I guarantee you that will happen.

Well, the connotation of "unhoused" implies that no one cares for them. /s

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

There is pushback against person-first language coming from within the Deaf and autistic communities.

+1

My severely dyslexic kid calls himself “a dyslexic.”

Person first is irrelevant to the question anyway. Neither “homeless” nor “unhoused” is first person, or rather, both terms could be or not: people who are homeless v. The homeless and people who are unhoused vs the unhoused.