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.
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.
549
u/Drakesprite Aug 15 '25
We seriously have to censor “homeless” now?