Despite having many seemingly progressive views, many people who identify as liberal still support laws that make it illegal for the unhoused to exist in public spaces. The Onion asked liberals why they believe homelessness should be criminalized, and this is what they said.
“I’m fiscally liberal and socially a monster.” is going in the ol file cabinet.
arguing abt nomenclature when someone is living without shelter is the most privileged shit and ppl will actually bicker over this shit
“they are houseless, not homeless, a house is a building, a home is a community and ur close social connections” -actual thing i hear
no, a home is where you live. this person doesnt have a place to live. and none of these pedantic losers have actually worked with their local homeless communities. if they have, they would know that these people dont care abt being called homeless vs houseless. they care abt when they will eat next, if they will get more than a couple hours of sleep that night, how they’ll stay cool (or warm in winter). some of these people have children and pets they care for. you think any of them tell their children “this is home”? no, they would do anything to actually provide them a home.
liberals are so infuriating and none of them actually do anything abt these ppl they pretend to care abt. if they actually worked w homeless communities they would gain some real empathy for them, not some practiced speech abt how we should call them “unhoused people”
this is the only argument ive heard that hasnt made me angry. but it still doesnt help them. its just a virtue signal. you can still say “homeless people have a right to housing and the fact that they are homeless is directly caused by capitalist/landlord exploitation”
We don't have this debate whatsoever over here in the UK. The only terms that matter have strict definitions. Homeless? Everyone without a form of permanent residence (includes sofa surfers living with friends). Sleeping on the streets? They're called Rough Sleepers. This gives a clear and well-defined way to differentiate between those in the highest short-term need vs those with long-term needs.
There's legitimately no point whatsoever in quibbling about terminology outside of strict definitions other than as a means of side-tracking debate and claiming moral ground that is entirely undeserved.
Oh absolutely. It’s a tiny change that means basically nothing. Takes no effort to use and I slightly prefer it, but it’s absolutely not worth arguing about ever as long as the point of “house them” is agreed on
100%. im not gonna argue against ur word preference since we agree on what matters, in fact i appreciate the extra context on why u prefer “unhoused”. its the liberals who do the same that annoy me bc i know their support starts and ends w this civility language policing bs
During the heatwave this last month, local buildings set themselves up as "cooling centers" with AC and free water bottles. I bet it hardly impacted their bottom lines, and took a minimum of effort to deploy. I doubt anyone that took advantage of them even thought about the homeless people in our community. And if they did, it probably would have been because a homeless guy walked in and took a water. The amount of disgust people have for homeless individuals is monstrous. It doesn't help that our community has done everything to remove shelters and programs for them.
Housing is a basic human right, and we are failing these people.
“they are houseless, not homeless, a house is a building, a home is a community and ur close social connections” -actual thing i hear
We don't live in a nomadic society, so a houseless person is going to be a homeless person anyways even by this pedantic distinction. Houseless but not homeless would largely be limited to people who just got evicted and have to stay at a motel.
arguing abt nomenclature when someone is living without shelter is the most privileged shit and ppl will actually bicker over this shit
“they are houseless, not homeless, a house is a building, a home is a community and ur close social connections” -actual thing i hear
no, a home is where you live. this person doesnt have a place to live. and none of these pedantic losers have actually worked with their local homeless communities. if they have, they would know that these people dont care abt being called homeless vs houseless. they care abt when they will eat next, if they will get more than a couple hours of sleep that night, how they’ll stay cool (or warm in winter). some of these people have children and pets they care for. you think any of them tell their children “this is home”? no, they would do anything to actually provide them a home.
liberals are so infuriating and none of them actually do anything abt these ppl they pretend to care abt. if they actually worked w homeless communities they would gain some real empathy for them, not some practiced speech abt how we should call them “unhoused people”
I do prefer “unhoused” because it implies someone is responsible for housing them and isn’t doing it.
But much better is not having a word for it because you gave everyone housing
this is the only argument ive heard that hasnt made me angry. but it still doesnt help them. its just a virtue signal. you can still say “homeless people have a right to housing and the fact that they are homeless is directly caused by capitalist/landlord exploitation”
100%
We don't have this debate whatsoever over here in the UK. The only terms that matter have strict definitions. Homeless? Everyone without a form of permanent residence (includes sofa surfers living with friends). Sleeping on the streets? They're called Rough Sleepers. This gives a clear and well-defined way to differentiate between those in the highest short-term need vs those with long-term needs.
There's legitimately no point whatsoever in quibbling about terminology outside of strict definitions other than as a means of side-tracking debate and claiming moral ground that is entirely undeserved.
Oh absolutely. It’s a tiny change that means basically nothing. Takes no effort to use and I slightly prefer it, but it’s absolutely not worth arguing about ever as long as the point of “house them” is agreed on
100%. im not gonna argue against ur word preference since we agree on what matters, in fact i appreciate the extra context on why u prefer “unhoused”. its the liberals who do the same that annoy me bc i know their support starts and ends w this civility language policing bs
deleted by creator
During the heatwave this last month, local buildings set themselves up as "cooling centers" with AC and free water bottles. I bet it hardly impacted their bottom lines, and took a minimum of effort to deploy. I doubt anyone that took advantage of them even thought about the homeless people in our community. And if they did, it probably would have been because a homeless guy walked in and took a water. The amount of disgust people have for homeless individuals is monstrous. It doesn't help that our community has done everything to remove shelters and programs for them.
Housing is a basic human right, and we are failing these people.
We don't live in a nomadic society, so a houseless person is going to be a homeless person anyways even by this pedantic distinction. Houseless but not homeless would largely be limited to people who just got evicted and have to stay at a motel.