• CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      Every few years some people decide you can’t use certain words because they have become negative terms to some group. So they invent a new term for the same thing and as the years go by and more people use the new term, it gets the same negative association that the old one had. Then the cycle begins anew.

      Sometimes it’s good - a lot of slurs that were ok for anyone to say when I was a kid are now socially unacceptable and that’s great. But sometimes the SJWs take it too far and I think this is one of those times. I don’t understand the reason for the push to call them “unhoused” but I’m willing to be educated.

      Once you hit middle age and have seen this happen a few times you’ll usually just roll your eyes and carry on.

      • slaacaa@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Also, homeless is far from a slur in my opinion, and a similar term is used in many language. Using unhoused doesn’t change anything, the people you talk about still don’t have a place to live, but now you can feel better about yourself by using a different word.

        Good article on the topic, highlighting the origin of the word, and the reasons many try to use it: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jul/20/homeless-unhoused-houseless-term-history

        • CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Very interesting, thanks for linking it! And they even have a name for the phenomenon I described.

          “Intentional shifts in terminology might seem like a game of Whac-A-Mole – an ultimately unsuccessful effort to outrun a concept’s ugly implications. The Harvard professor Steven Pinker dubbed it the “euphemism treadmill”.”

    • scorpious@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      It’s actually someone experiencing homelessness.

      The (good, imho) reason is that “homeless” can quickly become a defining label when used to describe an individual, when what we are after is really just a description of someone’s current circumstance.

      So the new wording is simply more accurate.

      • Son_of_dad@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        It’s honestly the exact same thing, almost the exact same word and it means the exact same thing. It isn’t gonna help anything. These labels just help the keyboard activists feel like they did something

        • scorpious@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          I work with a nonprofit that works closely with children in this circumstance, and yes, it does make a huge difference to the individuals involved.

          Having it be understood and acknowledged that this is something we are going through, and not who we are gives a healthy framing for families to lift themselves up…and not be “homeless people.”

          • Son_of_dad@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            I see absolutely no difference whatsoever between the two terms. Even stigma wise. Being homeless isn’t a good thing, stop trying to make it sound nice unless you want people to think it’s nice and ignore it

  • Emma_Gold_Man@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    The title is unreasonably generous. The apology is entirely self serving and meaningless.

    • He doesn’t apologize for throwing water for the man - only for posting it on social media.
    • He tries to frame a narrative that the victim deserved it
    • He doesn’t offer any sort of reparations or even an insignificant donation to a group that works with unhoused people generally.

    It’s clearly only to ensure his business is not affected, reduce the threat of prosecution (being considered by law enforcement, presumably for assault), and to encourage leniency from the judge if it gets that far.

    Apology not accepted.