Hacker News

points by mr_00ff00 3 days ago | 0 comments

Gives vibes of saying “unhoused” instead of homeless.

I feel like the affluent just love to invent new words to show the “others” that aren’t using it how backwards they are, and how the affluent are truly enlightened.

[–] idontwantthis 3 days ago

I also thought unhoused was just a pointless euphemism, but I recently learned it does have a technical meaning. A "homeless" person might live with friends, in a shelter, or on the street. An unhoused person is one strictly living on the street/car/public space.

[–] NoMoreNicksLeft 3 days ago

If I had a friend who was staying with us because he had no other place to be, he wouldn't be homeless. That's like saying my 13 yr old is homeless because his name's not on the mortgage. The only point of the euphemisms is for people to feel self-righteous for policing language. Which they often do because it's lazier than any sort of real reform.

[–] HWR_14 2 days ago

If your friend moves into your guest room and receives mail there, etc. they are not homeless. If they sleep on your couch 5 days a month then circulate among 6 friends doing the same, they are.

[–] NoMoreNicksLeft 2 days ago

If I buy a plot of land out in the middle of nowhere and do not inform the post office, apparently I'm homeless too, even if I built a mansion on said land.

Your measurements of homelessness are dumb and not representative of the condition most people think of when they are thinking of homelessness.

[–] dust-jacket 2 days ago

That's just not true. Your 13yr old is your legal responsibility, whilst you have a home, they do to.

Someone who you generously take in now has a roof over their head but they have literally zero protections - you can argue with them tomorrow and be within your rights to throw them out.

Someone with nowhere at all to stay might die of the cold tonight.

Homelessness charities absolutely want to know which case you are in. They require different interventions with different priorities.

[–] idontwantthis 2 days ago

You are correct.

[–] NoMoreNicksLeft 2 days ago

>That's just not true. Your 13yr old is your legal responsibility, whilst you have a home, they do to.

You miss my point so thoroughly, it can only be genius. I know that it's not true. My son's not homeless. The other guy implied it, because he can't come up with a logical test of who and who isn't homeless.

[–] abustamam 3 days ago

This is interesting. Two things can be true though. There may be a technical distinction between the two terms but I think many people (like me, until now!) don't know it, which means that many people do use it as a euphemism and not as its technical intention.

[–] specialist 2 days ago

Like being quoted out of context.

It's just so easy to mock terms and phrases of art, to spin up the general public.

People like Chris Rufo, who mine legal, bureaucratic, technical, etc. phrases, are trolls.

[–] matt-attack 2 days ago

I don’t think anyone would describe non-rent paying cohabitant as “homeless”. I truly don’t believe we needed another word. It’s just different for different’s sake.

It’s essentially the same word too:

“Un” == “less” “Home” == “house”

It’s just another example of the Euphemism Treadmill.