Homeless vs. Unhoused: What's the Difference?
More annoying weaponization of language by the woke.
Seen on the Watch Duty app, instructions for people threatened by the Eaton fire in Pasadena:
It is also asked that unhoused neighbors refrain from using warming fires. Anyone experiencing homelessness should seek shelter through the County or City of Los Angeles.
My conversation with AI about this (warning: strong language):
what is the stupid ass reason they changed homeless to unhoused
The term "unhoused" is often used instead of "homeless" to shift the focus from a person's lack of a home to the broader systemic issues that contribute to housing insecurity. The change in terminology aims to emphasize that people experiencing homelessness are not defined by their lack of housing, and it seeks to highlight the temporary nature of their situation. This language choice is part of a broader effort to use more respectful and person-first language.
how is it more respectful? This is fucking stupid
The aim behind using the term "unhoused" instead of "homeless" is to foster a more respectful and empathetic dialogue. Here are a few reasons why some people consider it more respectful:
Person-First Language: It emphasizes the person rather than defining them by their housing status, reinforcing that their situation is not permanent or an inherent trait.
Focus on Systemic Issues: "Unhoused" can highlight the broader social and economic factors contributing to the lack of housing, rather than implying a deficiency in the individual.
Reducing Stigma: By changing the terminology, there is an effort to reduce the stigma and negative connotations that might be associated with the word "homeless."
While some may find this change unnecessary or confusing, it reflects an ongoing discussion about how language can impact perception and treatment of social issues.
how is it more person first than homeless? it's either homeless person or unhoused person, what the fuck is the difference?
The difference between "homeless" and "unhoused" often comes down to the connotations and perceptions associated with each term rather than their grammatical structure. Here are some points that advocates of the term "unhoused" might highlight:
Connotations of "Home": The word "homeless" can carry emotional and social connotations tied to the idea of "home" as a place of belonging and security. Some argue that "unhoused" is more neutral, focusing solely on the lack of a physical dwelling.
Evolving Language: Language evolves, and this shift is part of broader efforts to use terms that are perceived as less stigmatizing or judgmental.
Social Awareness: The change is part of an effort to increase awareness of housing issues as societal problems, not individual failings.
Ultimately, whether one sees a meaningful difference can depend on personal perspective and experiences with these terms. The intent behind such changes is often to foster more understanding and empathy in discussing complex social issues.
it's fucking stupid
I understand your frustration. Language changes can sometimes feel unnecessary or confusing, especially when they don't seem to address the core issues. The intention behind these changes is often to promote respect and reduce stigma, but opinions on their effectiveness can vary widely. It's important to focus on the broader issues of housing insecurity and how society can address them.
this is not about language evolving naturally, it's about stupid ass woke people turning every word into a landmine
I understand your perspective. Changes in language, especially those driven by social movements, can sometimes feel abrupt or challenging to adapt to. The goal is often to create a more inclusive and respectful dialogue, but it can lead to strong opinions and debates. It's important to have open discussions about these changes and their impacts on society.
or maybe we don't fall into line and still use words like homeless
Using language that feels most authentic to you is important, and everyone has the right to choose how they express themselves. It's beneficial, though, to be aware of the different perspectives and reasons behind language changes, even if you don't agree with them. Respectful dialogue and understanding can help bridge differences in opinion.
fuck that there is nothing respectful about unilaterally changing language
I understand your concerns about language changes feeling imposed or unilateral. It's important to have discussions about why these changes are suggested and to listen to different viewpoints. Ultimately, language is a tool for communication, and mutual respect in conversations can help navigate these shifts, even when opinions differ.
Argghhh…
Having in my lifetime been homeless and having worked to encourage and assist the homeless in getting off the streets and back into regular society, it has been my experience that the term the homeless use to refer to themselves is "homeless".
Yes, the term "unhoused" IS stupid. It's classic virtue signalling--insipid, inane, insane, and completely idiotic.
What people do well to understand is that homelessness is NOT a problem. Homelessness is the symptom of a thousand and one separate problems, ranging from economic privation and misfortune to mental health to substance abuse. In many cases the issue is "all of the above."
There is a sentence from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr's "Letter From A Birmingham Jail" that has always had a particular resonance with me, and it explains perfectly why use of such reinvented terminology is not merely pointless, it's morally reprehensible.
" Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I it" relationship for an "I thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. "
Dr King was, of course, writing about the evils of racism and the segregation which arose from that racism. Yet the premise is just as true for any labeling, any categorizing, any classification of people as being either "this" or "that'. All such labels by their very nature, just as Dr. King explained so eloquently, substitute the "I it" relationship for the "I thou" relationship.
All such labels by their very nature relegate persons to the status of things.
All such labels by their very nature deny the humanity that we all share.
Using "unhoused" rather than "homeless" is a woketivist's cowardly way of avoiding the issue of homelessness.
In Jesus' Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, He makes it quite clear that we are called to have compassion for the poor, the oppressed, the downtrodden.
"for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ "
We are not called to judge how a person comes to be hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or even in prison. We are called to care. We are called to have compassion. We are called to meet all people, regardless of their circumstance, wherever they are--physically, psychologically, and emotionally.
Using "unhoused" rather than "homeless" is not meeting a homeless person where they are. By pretending that one label is somehow less dehumanizing than another label, the woketivist is implicitly endorsing the use of all labels, and disregarding that all labels are by definition a dehumanizing of the individual.
Using "unhoused" rather than "homeless" manufactures a non-issue for the woketivist to "solve", while doing nothing to address the issues of economics, social isolation, mental health, substance abuse, and whatever other demons manage to invade a person's mind and tear their lives apart.
By debating which label the woketivists will demean and dehumanize others, they show themselves to be none of the sheep for whom the Kingdom of Heaven awaits, but the goats who will be cast in to fire and damnation.
We do well to always remember that the person standing on the street with nowhere to go is not merely "homeless". That person is also a human being.
The AI told the the truth, just in a sideways manner. Here it is. The only goal--all of it, 100 percent--of moving to "unhoused" is to shift all responsibility away from the person and place all of it on other people (and their money).
It's classic external locus of control and self-victimization in order to get other people to pay for your stuff.
That's all it is. None of the other justifications are true. They're just distractions.