A shopping mall and office complex in downtown Montreal is being criticized for using the popular children's song 'Baby Shark' to discourage unhoused people from loitering in its emergency exit stairwells.
I dont see how. If anything, its just a matter of time until you see houseless as being their fault. Because the baggage is something you (and society in general) is adding. Its not implicit in the word itself.
In the US they mean different things, as homeless includes people living in other people’s homes. That can include people whose house just burnt down and are living with friends or family because they lost their permanent residence (home). U housed is about where they are staying.
@Grimy Maybe. But unless you can produce a source, it sounds to me like you’re only guessing, and forming an essentialism from your feelings and assumptions rather than from evidence.
Homeless = no permanent residence, which also includes couch surfing, parents and children who just fled an abusive family member and are temporarily ltaying with friends or relatives, and people who are living in their car. All people without a home.
Unhoused = homeless people that don’t have a roof over their heads. Might include living in a car.
Edit: to all the knee-jerk downvoting. This is literally a quote from an article the user himself supplied as proof that there is a difference.
Unhoused is probably the most popular alternative to the word “homeless.” It’s undoubtedly the one I see most often recommended by advocates. But it doesn’t have a meaningful difference in connotation from the more common term, “homeless.”
Yes, but academically and more broadly in society, homeless means unhoused (by broadly in society, I mean in the common language like how third world is a synonyms for developing country even though academically it means something else.)
Important to note that he said in the US, not his hometown dialect or something. It’s a blanket statement that is completely wrong no matter how you look at it.
@Grimy Canadian English is a dialect. So is US English. And both have sub-dialects, as well as registers. These are real differences that really do affect how specific words are used and understood.
In US English, unhoused means homeless. I’m saying that it is used and understood as a synonym (you can’t argue this point either way without rhetoric) and that it is also officially considered a synonym (you can argue this point by opening a thesaurus).
I understand your point, it’s just wrong in both cases. Instead of explaining it, back it up or am I to believe you just because you can quote the wiki on rhetoric? I guess rhetoric only applies to the other person.
@Grimy You are relying on a rhetorical device called an essentialism: an assertion of fact without evidence, a claim asserted as established fact without supporting argument or proof. Put another way:
Things aren’t true just because you say they are, no matter how sure you are.
Essentialism isn’t merely poor forensics. It’s very literally gotten millions of people killed.
We always want to make every effort to use good forensics in arguments.
Unhoused? Has homeless as a word been banned?
I think the idea is to put the responsibility for housing onto society/authority as opposed to the victim.
Doesn’t homeless imply its society’s fault too?
Perhaps to some people, but to me it does sound like a homeless person just happens to be without.
Whereas an unhoused person has been let down by whoever is responsible for ensuring people are housed.
I dont see how. If anything, its just a matter of time until you see houseless as being their fault. Because the baggage is something you (and society in general) is adding. Its not implicit in the word itself.
Welcome to the euphemism treadmill
In the US they mean different things, as homeless includes people living in other people’s homes. That can include people whose house just burnt down and are living with friends or family because they lost their permanent residence (home). U housed is about where they are staying.
People on the street are homeless and unhoused.
And you really think people use and understand these terms like that?
You may be correct in the academic sense, but completely wrong in all other senses.
He isn’t correct in an academic sense. They are synonyms. Unhoused is being used because homeless has negative connotation to it.
@Grimy Maybe. But unless you can produce a source, it sounds to me like you’re only guessing, and forming an essentialism from your feelings and assumptions rather than from evidence.
Not sure about Canada, but in the US:
Homeless = no permanent residence, which also includes couch surfing, parents and children who just fled an abusive family member and are temporarily ltaying with friends or relatives, and people who are living in their car. All people without a home.
Unhoused = homeless people that don’t have a roof over their heads. Might include living in a car.
They are synonyms. Please don’t make things up.
Edit: to all the knee-jerk downvoting. This is literally a quote from an article the user himself supplied as proof that there is a difference.
It’s literally just a pc synonym of homeless.
@Grimy Believe it or not, different dialects may have different meanings for the same words.
Yes, but academically and more broadly in society, homeless means unhoused (by broadly in society, I mean in the common language like how third world is a synonyms for developing country even though academically it means something else.)
Important to note that he said in the US, not his hometown dialect or something. It’s a blanket statement that is completely wrong no matter how you look at it.
@Grimy Canadian English is a dialect. So is US English. And both have sub-dialects, as well as registers. These are real differences that really do affect how specific words are used and understood.
In US English, unhoused means homeless. I’m saying that it is used and understood as a synonym (you can’t argue this point either way without rhetoric) and that it is also officially considered a synonym (you can argue this point by opening a thesaurus).
I understand your point, it’s just wrong in both cases. Instead of explaining it, back it up or am I to believe you just because you can quote the wiki on rhetoric? I guess rhetoric only applies to the other person.
@Grimy Get over yourself.
And goodbye. There’s plenty of hopelessly tiresome people online already, and no one needs more.
And grow the fuck up already.
@Grimy You are relying on a rhetorical device called an essentialism: an assertion of fact without evidence, a claim asserted as established fact without supporting argument or proof. Put another way:
Things aren’t true just because you say they are, no matter how sure you are.
Essentialism isn’t merely poor forensics. It’s very literally gotten millions of people killed.
We always want to make every effort to use good forensics in arguments.
I don’t believe you actually KNOW the facts.