“I’m fiscally liberal and socially a monster.” is going in the ol file cabinet.

  • ZoomeristLeninist [comrade/them, she/her]M
    ·
    1 year ago

    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”

    • ClimateChangeAnxiety [he/him, they/them]
      ·
      1 year ago

      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

      • ZoomeristLeninist [comrade/them, she/her]M
        ·
        1 year ago

        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

    • Awoo [she/her]
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      its just a virtue signal

      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.