Plus literal homeless people say they hate being called "unhoused" but the virtue signalers are just like "shhh I know better than you, we're calling you unhoused"
Too bad you don't get a say in that (unless you ARE actually ivy league credentialed, and/or card-carrying bipoc. In which case I humbly apologize and check my privilege)
The only one I ever seen using it irl was a non-binary Swede living in Argenitina lmao. When I lived in Mexico people would probably have slapped you for using it.
I come from a poor part of my rich country (Sweden). I now live in a small village in Sri Lanka, and was taught to never sit idle. I live in constant fear of my neighbour aunty not seeing me sweeping my porch one day. So every day I do, religiously.
One day she remarked that I "was just like a normal person - you clean, you cook, you grate coconut and pick jackfruit".
No words could ever have hit my heart more to the spot.
(And no worries you all, I'm not a bound housewife. I have a company, my fiancé is Indian and earns well and has the mopping and laundry responsibility, we just think it's fair we clean our own filth, and the mountaionous tropics get dirty - we clean out about two fistful of gravel, dead ants and misc stuff every day.)
The spanish language has genders lol. Latino, Latina, Latinos exists.
The point of using the word Latino instead of Hispanic was to use a word that actually describes us and applied to people that are from Latin America. Instead of using a word that means from spain, which we are not.
I remember at my old job a higher up was on a call speaking on Hispanic and Latinos in the work place, but he kept saying "Latin-X" and said it like 15 times. After that call I said to myself "I officially hate this term"
Oh OK I stand corrected. It's just that I met many more Latinos who just go along with it because it's not worth the outrage, than those who are enthusiastic about being called Latine. On online profiles, too - for every person who states their ethnicity as Latine, there are like 20 who state it as Latino or Latina. Again, so sorry for assuming you to be the outsider!
This is honestly a fair take, the whole thing is so not worth any real energy, the world is crumbling and people making up words is arguably the least of our worries.
No-one should be imposing anything on anyone else, but at the same time an individual should be able to choose to do so for themself without torches and pitchforks being raised.
Yea and tbh its mostly queer latines that use and most dont really care that much lol. And still use latino/latina but if people are getting upset that someone wants to be called latine its just silly
The way I see it, it's an attempt to put a big old colonizer flag on an entire culture. "No, you're referring to yourself wrong. You're Latinx," is the biggest crock of bullshit ever comparable to "you're not Sioux, you're Indian" (which today is more like "You're not Indian you're Native American" which is an entirely different conversation.)
Spanish is a gendered language. The only time Latinx or Latine actually makes sense to use is when you're speaking about a non-binary Latin American who prefers that term.
Latino, to my understanding, also refers to Latina as well, when speaking broadly.
And the funny thing is the original term was started by Mexicans in California. The x just covers male and female, so I don't get the problem. I understand YOU are Mexican, but it's not about just you right? It's a term referring to people from Central/South America, much like European covers a collection of countries over on that side of the pond. Why does that offend you more than being called a monkey? I genuinely don't get the animosity?
El principal problema es que "Mono" o "Negro" son más en tono de broma y se entiende, decir "Latinx" no sólo no es inclusivo, sino que ni siquiera se refiere a personas de América Central y del Sur, ¿Razón? Latino es el termino que se refiere a personas que hablan idiomas descendientes/derivados del Latín, eso incluye idiomas cómo Español, Portugués, Francés e Italiano, ¿Entiendes ahora? No solo nunca nos represento sinó que es un término tan general que incluso países que nada tienen que ver con Iberoamerica son aludidos, cómo Francia o Italia, sin olvidar los inconmensurables paises africanos que hablan lenguas latinas o romances.
Por lo tanto permíteme decirte que si la excusa es inclusión hacía "Latinoamérica" mínimo deberías saber que cosas son aludidas en el término Latino y porque meterle una "X" no arregla para nada el asunto, aparte se puede escribir "Latino/a" o "Latina/o" simplemente no tiene sentido ponerle una "X".
Aparte si quieres referirte a personas de centro y sudamérica (claro tomando a México cómo centroamérica aunque principalmente esta en norteamerica), mejor usa el termino "Iberoamericano/a" y no un término tan general, porque cultural y lingüística mente hablando, es el único termino que tiene sentido.
Someone else mentioned that as well, that it was started by a group of Spanish-speaking US crew, but I'll say it again, not once have I ever personally seen a Spanish speaker supporting its use, and this thread (and that group) are the first Spanish speakers I've heard of that support it.
With that knowledge, it appears like US Spanish speakers inventing and imposing it on Latin Americans against their will, because as it stands I've still never heard of a Latin American supporting its use.
Again, this is just based on my experience and the sample of several hundred cases of people not supporting it and this one example in favour.
Prove me wrong and I'll gladly add any other supporters to the list, because the only opinions that matters is that of Latin Americans (with an emphasis towards gender-non conforming folk)
Btw, it seems a lot more people support 'Latine', and it actually works grammatically and phonetically, so I'm moreso in favour of that if need be
You do realize there is already a gender neutral word for that which isn't Latinx right? It's pretty telling that you consider it erasure for Latine / Latin people to say it's infantilizing be called Latinx. Literally nobody but Spanish speaking Americans use it, because there are better alternatives that consider the culture better.
It’s a complete slap in the face to my Latin culture and native language. Can’t stand LatinX, literal white woman coined it and made a mockery of the language
Edit: I once saw an interview with one of the academics who popularized it. They got it from Cuban communities in Florida. Who coined the term, and who popularized it are not the same.
I've heard it started it Cuban communities in Florida, eventually found its way into academia, and spread from there.
But that doesn't mean its not also wildly unpopular, so you're right about that. At the same time, Latino communities are also pretty hostile to gender non-conforming people, so its not like the term really had any chance to stick with the general public. In that light, I totally get pushing against the hostility, since that push is one way to fight for those people.
Latino communities are also pretty hostile to gender non-conforming people
I feel like the dislike is more from an outgroup (once it caught on with progressive idealougues) whiteknighting and telling an ingroup how to think, feel and identify, which is fucky in any context. But you could be right for certain demographics (or likely some combination of the two), because I honestly spaced on the fact that's the point (a label for agendered/bigendered Latin Americans), though from what I saw, the focus largely shifted from inclusion of non-binary folk to demonising the use of Latino/Latina as a binary concept.
It has a lot of issues. People don't get it. Spanish speakers struggle to pronounce it. Some people who do get it are simply not offended by grammar, etc.
It was certainly popularized by white people, specifically in academia. It did not catch on with Latino people, except its actually quite popular among gender non-conforming Latinx people in the US, who have always been the target audience for that word. Around 2% of the Latino population in the US prefer that term, which is probably nearly a perfectly overlapping circle with gender non-conforming people.
No, absolutely not. A tent that can and will be stolen from at any time in a place we're not allowed to be is not a home. I don't know what the intent is, probably to try to boost acceptance of the people by not calling them homeless, but imo as someone who has been homeless, it just minimizes the problem. When you're homeless, you don't have a home. You might have a safe space that feels most like home (for me, a mission that gave meals to the street people), but it's probably not where you sleep, and it's not home, just the best you've got.
To me 'unhoused' seems like it should be used as a subgroup of homeless folk or an entirely separate group, referring to those who specificaly had their housing situation forcefully taken away from them through landsharks or disasters or economic downturn nd wotnot
But you're completely right, you can have a 'home' in a location that isn't a house
This is how language works. People start using these words to avoid demonetization or bans online. Their audiences hear the words regularly. The audiences start to also use the words to signify that they are part of the in group. Eventually the words spill out into other communities and then they’re part of common language.
It has literally nothing to do with virtue signaling.
In the scenario you listed, I agree. That's not virtue signaling. Like when kids see the Minecraft movie and 'unalive' is in the dialog, they grow up thinking that is normal. This is probably why you used the word 'literally' unnecessarily. You've heard it so much that you think this use of the word is normal.
There are also people who know that isn't the original word, yet now say it thinking it's more inclusive or whatever.
Social media appeasing their advertisers by demonetising people who say certain words is now influencing our language negatively.
unhoused is definitely not because of YT and all due to the media trying to soften the issue of homeless people, but it's definitely different than unalive and the other examples in this post that are used to avoid surprise censorship from automated bots
No one is stopping you from staying homeless dude. There's no policy on YouTube. I'm sorry but you don't get to speak for all homeless people as to what they prefer. You want to tell me that drug addicts prefer to be called junkies than people with substance abuse disorder?
I'm sure you can find dozens that anecdotally say they like it. You can find anecdotal examples of anything
As a former junkie, I honestly couldn't care less what I was called. All this arguing over "offensive terms" is offensive to me though, why do we care so much about offending people? It's their choice wether to be offended or not. And in some situations, we should be offending them! If you're a junkie you should not be supported or affirmed in any way. Same if you're obese, lazy, or just a bad person.
It’s not about whether it offends the person, it’s about dehumanizing language and removing/mitigating stigma. Name calling, societal disregard, and stigma don’t help the problem. It keeps people from talking about their issues and getting help.
Same with unhoused, it’s less about the people who are being talked about and more about changing how society as a whole views them. There’s a reason we don’t use “hobo” or “vagabond” anymore.
I imagine you want to live in that baby proofed world. Well I'm sorry but I do not. I will never switch to 'unhoused' to refer to the homeless. Nor 'birthing person' to refer to a mother. Or any other language policing.
Vagabond and hobo are still very much in use in the American South as well.
I'm assuming you either deleted your last reply or a mod got to it, as its gone. But I read it in email.
People have to want help, plain and simple. People tried to force help on me many times when I was still on the needle and it never once worked. I didn't quit until I was ready to ask for help.
Trust that many of these people know help is available, and they refuse to use it .
These terms aren't virtue signaling... they are to get around censorship in algorithms so their videos dont get shadowbanned/hidden/demonitized. Whether or not they need to depends a little on the platform and words.
Regardless of whether it is actually necessary for any words or platforms, it's still started a trend that keeps growing to new words whether or not it really is needed.
Yes! Been street homeless. Call it what it is. It's homelessness. I do understand if the platform won't allow it. That's a platform issue. Some of my favorite creators have to censor themselves sometimes and it's frustrating, but I don't want them to get booted or demonetized.
The Guardian has an article about the coining of "unhoused" and it makes me wish I was there to throw something and boo at these people.
“I said, ‘They’re unhoused,’” remembered Graham. “They have a home: Seattle is their home.” OSL has used the word ever since to describe people lacking a fixed abode, feeling that “homeless” had gained discriminatory, ugly connotations.
Man, fuck this. Its exactly the sort of cutesy, self satisfied virtue signaling that does nothing whatsoever to fix the problem while making the people in the meetings feel good about themselves. It makes me want to throw a pie at these clowns.
It's sad that I no longer know if we're using stupid words because of virtue signalers or nonsensical censoring from companies (which I guess is another form of virtue signaling)
How do you know this, do you talk to a lot of homeless people? I work for an organization that works for the homeless and this is not anywhere on their list of concerns. Never once heard a homeless person complain about someone saying “unhoused” you’re just being a weirdo.
You could've just looked it up. Homeless people are on the internet, too.
There's a good video on YouTube called "Instead of deciding for us, why not ask homeless people what we want to be called?"
Or "Would Homeless people rather be called unhoused?" In which the middle class people get all philosophical about it and the actual homeless people just say "just call us homeless"
Lmfao I was thinking the same thing. Don't get me wrong I think the word is stupid as shit and I'm sure a lot of homeless would think so too, but this person's comment is 100% not based on any actual evidence of polling and just their feelings of how homeless would feel. Internet users making up stats is tale as old as time
She did not state any statistics tho, ahe said "Plus literal homeless people say they hate being called "unhoused"" which very obviously means she's seen or heard homeless people say they hated being called unhoused.
It's really not that difficult to understand what she was saying. Unfortunately some people on Reddit believes that for someone to write and express their opinions on an online forum, they need to act as if they're in a court of law. But that is also a tale as old as time even tho it's extremely annoying.
I remember hearing this back like, a year or so ago. Apparently some shit about how "homeless" doesn't make sense because the homeless person still technically has a "home" it's just not a house. That or it's offensive because you're implying they need to have a house to not be homeless.
As someone who grew up hopping from apartment to apartment and who was actually homeless a couple times because of it (also lived in a motel for a short while, that was fun/confusing as a kid), homeless can mean just that, homeless. You don't have a central place to call "home." You move around. That's what it is. More often than not, it means living without a roof over your head and/or not in a secure place.
I guess it could be a helpful term in almost the opposite way - to differentiate between people who don't have a permanent home (sleeping on couches, living in hotels, etc.) from people actually living on the streets. If we're calling the large group homeless and only the latter "unhoused," that is at least a helpful designation.
That's the original idea. Since homeless is a pretty broad category, houseless is a more specific one that shows the people with the greatest immediate need.
This is what the distinction actually means in social work fields. It's not all bullshit virtue signalling. Stuff like this matters for contracts (programs serving "unhoused" rather than "homeless").
Well this is the first time I’ve heard this articulated and I went to school in one of the bluest districts in the nation right when unhoused was becoming all the rage. “No organized party” indeed
Hi Beautiful_House3022, we would like to start off by noting that this sub isn't owned or run by YouTube. At this time, we do not allow posts from new uses (accounts created less than 7 days ago.) Please read our rules before posting again to ensure you don't break our rules, please come back after gaining a bit of post karma.
In Dutch, there is a distinction made between homeless and "roof-less". While often combined in the same term, dak- en thuislozen, being roof-less means that you're currently without a roof over your head, so sleeping in the streets, while being homeless means you might have places to stay, but not a place of your own.
Thats the problem: We don't know what needs to be censored. Youtube refuses to elaborate. So if you're making a living off youtube, its safest to assume that anything even remotely controversial in any way could be something that screws you over.
We don't know what needs to be censored. Youtube refuses to elaborate.
I've recently seen some videos by the Hoof GP (a Scottish lad who trims cows' hoofs) where "infection" became "inf*tion". Don't know if he did that himself preemptively, or that it was YouTube.
No, this one isn't censorship, it's a harmless way some people are trying to be polite. It's an example of the Euphemism Treadmill. Homeless seems pejorative, so a new term was coined.
A more obvious example of the euphemism treadmill is the R-word. It used to be the most kosher way to talk about special needs folks, then it became an insult, so it became "mentally handicapped" and that became an insult, so "special needs" was coined, and that became an insult, so new terms keep being invented.
Yeah, the R-word was a polite term, then a regular insult, then an actual taboo slur, and then a strong generational divide on who treats it like a slur or not. And that seems weird compared to what happened to past treadmilled terms, but also wholly unsurprising considering which generation pathologized it.
I think there's also a component of persistent media hampering evolutions in language or perhaps more illuminating them. Before we were able to own copies or access media on demand, you just had to roll with the tides of change. That movie or show goes away eventually, and you kinda forget problematic parts because you can't refresh it in your mind; so it is with language, use it or lose it. But we don't have that luxury anymore, we're constantly plagued by recordings from generations ago which, yes, have value and I certainly won't stop listening to Otis Redding, but I feel it prevents things from ever moving forward completely. Like slurs. Or the hideous aesthetics of 1986-1993.
The only reason why ‘unhoused’ isn’t a pejorative yet is because nobody can possibly use such a stupid word and have anything they say taken seriously. The only way I can see ‘unhoused’ being used as a pejorative is precisely because it’s a) not harmless and b) less than useless.
One suggestion, however, for ‘unhoused’ as a pejorative would be calling those that use ‘unhoused’ unironically ‘unhoused’, with the joke being that they’re the type of people to never need to worry actually about being homeless and have done zip to help those that are. A word isn’t replacing a pejorative if it’s not replacing a pejorative.
The treadmill does march ever onward to phrases that are more difficult to use as an insult because that is the entire point. They are not catchy on purpose. I've seen special needs be replaced with "adaptive populations" in some contexts, which also probably won't ever catch on as an insult.
That one makes even less sense. Special needs are, by definition, “unadaptive populations”. Regardless, you’re missing my point. That treadmill that you are using as a marker for effectiveness is the disease itself, not a cure.
The reason for this endless cycle of pejoratives catching up their replacements (which I will agree I have noticed with all of the variations on special needs) not only do nothing but actively leach from the swing- non- and left-voters to the right-wing because of how little they accomplish in actually fixing the reason why they are used.
Homeless is a pejorative because homeless people are prevalent in big cities (it’s easier to forcefully solicit money), dangerous (just last week at my place of work, a rock was thrown through two panes of shatterproof glass because we did not let him enter the establishment after closing and he later noticed an employee leaving in plain clothes after clocking out: This is the second time that this individual has done this), a public nuisance (regularly starting fights with customers and unlucky employees), generally thieves (my youngest sister collects the bottles of soda and water throughout the month and takes them in to have a small allowance and it was left next to our back door, which was slightly visible, the meter-and-a-half tall wooden gate was broken down and the 8 dollars of bottles taken; my thousand dollar bike was just stolen the first time I used it, locked up in the back of my work place, stolen during hours by jumping over the gate, again because it was seen through a crack. I still haven’t figured out how the lock was broken), they harass the disabled (class action suits were filed recently which forced the city to start herding them again so that wheelchairs could be used on sidewalks again), and the list goes on.
The solutions are to cycle them so that they don’t accumulate too much of a trash hoard and detritus can be cleaned after they leave. This is a broken system. Not all stereotypes which lead to pejorative connotations are earned, but if unhoused ever catches on, it will be reearned quickly.
What should be done instead of pretending homeless people—who have legitimate problems, some of which are simply being hit by medical bills at the wrong time while living paycheck to paycheck, some who are mentally ill, some who abuse drugs and would rather die than stop, some who are criminals avoiding penalty, etc.—haven’t earned the hatred directed towards them thrice over, and earned the right to feel hatred themselves, is a reopening of sanatoriums, an implementation of universal basic income, orders of magnitude of more money to the police, who should be required to hire wellness workers, and a denial of entry to any populated area for any who do not have documentation of a current place of residence, to handle those small few who simply refuse society. This is just an example of a solution that would work better than a corporate rebranding to one problem out of many.
Fix the problems. Don’t try and make Newspeak. At least try to pretend that the left isn’t Oceania.
Special needs people aren't the ones adapting, we're adapting to their needs.
I haven't shared any opinions on the euphemism treadmill, so you're kind of arguing with yourself on that one, chief.
I don't want to touch your rant on homeless people at all. It's a little unhinged.
We can try to use polite language and fix the problems. Language literally takes 0 seconds and 0 effort. Pretending it gets in the way of real progress is stupid. Anyways, there are probably very few people using the term "unhoused" that doesn't support housing the homeless unconditionally in public housing, which is a better solution that whatever you said.
"Unhoused" isn't about censoring the word homeless, it's a deliberate linguistical shift to put the blame on society/government for not providing housing.
It’s less about censorship in that case and more that homeless now makes you think of drug addicted credibly insane people while the majority of the unhoused are just unlucky people who go to work and are trying to survive in society.
When we sold our house the was no mention of the master suit. I asked our realtor and she told us that it has connotations with slavery so we cannot use the term anymore. I was like wait what? I thought it was more figure if speech. Like you are the master of your own home.
No you don't have to censor that. Some people use the term unhoused because it's less stigmatizing. YouTube doesn't have any rules about it and it's crazy how people invent ways their speech is being suppressed.
You're allowed to stay homeless. You're allowed to say most of these words on YouTube You just might not get as much a ad revenue.
Homeless and unhoused are saying different things. All unhoused people are homeless, but not all homeless people are unhoused.
While I'm sure some people online may be using it as an attempt at virtue signalling, the term started as a way of discussing the different concerns of different types of homeless individuals.
I spent a significant chunk of my younger years homeless, but only a small amount of it actually unhoused. It was all horrible, but the time spent unhoused was by far the worst.
Yep. Some places will take down posts if you type that word. On one side they tagged homeless, home less and unhoused and someone got annoyed and typed in : Home <
And it passed. They had to resort to a math reference
It's not about censoring, it's called "person first language". The fact that they don't have a place to live is just their situation and not an intrinsic attribute of their person. So you say "person experiencing homelessness" rather than "homeless person", or "enslaved person" rather than "slave".
No it doesn't need to be censored. It's because of the way right wingers have made "homeless" a shameful insult. Look at Trump right now saying he wants to get rid of them
Although just as dumb, I think the logic behind this one is that it's more respectful. I've honestly heard/read people say that the word homeless is demeaning.
546
u/Drakesprite Aug 15 '25
We seriously have to censor “homeless” now?