The "unhoused" term still seems so weird to me. It's like a new zoomer word for homeless. I think it's because of "unalive".
this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2024
570 points (98.5% liked)
Comics
5870 readers
10 users here now
This is a community for everything comics related! A place for all comics fans.
Rules:
1- Do not violate lemmy.ml site-wide rules
2- Be civil.
3- If you are going to post NSFW content that doesn't violate the lemmy.ml site-wide rules, please mark it as NSFW and add a content warning (CW). This includes content that shows the killing of people and or animals, gore, content that talks about suicide or shows suicide, content that talks about sexual assault, etc. Please use your best judgement. We want to keep this space safe for all our comic lovers.
4- No Zionism or Hasbara apologia of any kind. We stand with Palestine π΅πΈ . Zionists will be banned on sight.
5- The moderation team reserves the right to remove any post or comments that it deems a necessary for the well-being and safety of the members of this community, and same goes with temporarily or permanently banning any user.
Guidelines:
- If possible, give us your sources.
- If possible, credit creators of each comics in the title or body of your post. If you are the creator, please credit yourself. A simple β- Meβ would suffice.
- In general terms, write in body of your post as much information as possible (dates, creators, editors, links).
- If you found the image on the web, it is encouraged to put the direct link to the image in the βLinkβ field when creating a post, instead of uploading the image to Lemmy. Direct links usually end in .jpg, .png, etc.
- One post by topic.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
No its because homeless has a lot of stigma. Its more like the difference between killed themself and comitted suicide. Unalive only exists because for some reason that i cant explain everyone has to be overprotective so suicide is banned on a lot of social medias and even in some uk and us schools from what i heard. But booty shaking is okay for a child of course. And unrestricted access to phone. Your 5 year old doesnt need a phone.
I meant that the "weirdness" and "zoomerness" of the term I feel probably comes from the "unalive" thing. I'm not sure if changing the word does away with the stigma since the negative association and stigma is against the people and the situation. Not that I'm against people using the word.
They're so concerned with looking good to their peers that they don't notice unhoused is no better than homeless because the word homeless isn't a problem in the first place.
I've got an idea about homelessness. Do you know what they ought to do? Change the name of it. It's not "homelessness", it's "houselessness". It's houses these people need. A home is an abstract idea, a home is a setting, it's a state of mind. These people need houses; physical, tangible structures. They need low-cost housing.
-George Carlin
"Houselessness" sounds a lot better imo than "unhoused". Fits in better with the existing term.
but unhoused reflects the fact that it is a societies duty to house its people, houseless like homeless leave it up to interpretation, whereas unhoused makes it more clear that this is a failing of the system not of individual people.
Wow, it's been a long time since I've seen BTAF
It's not about the money. It's about sending a message.
It really is disgusting how much money we waste on making sure that the "wrong people" don't get any of it.
Whenever you think the government is stupidly wasting money when there's a cheaper and more humane solution, you can bet your neck it's to funnel money toward corporations.
They usually jump through those hoops to obfuscate the trail and pretend there's some economic complexity. There ain't, it's just laundering a corporate subsidy.
Housing the homeless has been shown to work for a good percentage of folks. But no one wants to talk about where they are to go. And keep in mind, housing has to be in a city to provide job opportunities, access to counseling and social workers. Also, what about the ones for whom temp housing doesn't/can't lift them to their feet?
The ugly truth is that many (most?) are addicted to drugs or alcohol and/or suffer mental illnesses that often include antisocial behaviors. You want those types of people roaming your neighborhood? If you say you're fine with that, you're either lying or have never spent time around the homeless.
Worked downtown for 7-years and they were a constant hassle. One guy was pestering my wife and I told him to fuck off, about got jumped but his buddies didn't look interested in backing him. Another guy wanted to fight me at lunch one day, in the middle of a huge crowd, because I told him, sorry, I don't carry cash. On two occasions, same night, two guys got upset when I wouldn't give them money and followed my wife and I through the French Quarter.
Aside from potential violence, they trash everywhere they go. At my last job, another downtown, the office was surrounded by liquor bottles and filth. And yes, there was more than one dumpster, like the one they slept next to.
Anecdotally, I knew two guys who had a clean place to stay and just said fuck it, living with people is too much pressure, rather live on the streets. What about people like them?
Feel sorry for them all you want, I do, but we have to figure out where to put this housing. One upbeat note, if you can call it that, many of today's homeless are victims of our housing prices. Those are exactly the sort who just need a leg up and for whom free housing would work best.
Housing first works. Finland elimated homeless this way.
You can hem and has all you like with your evil malthusian way of thinking because you think all of them are addicts and all addicts deserve to die, but the fact is getting them in housing before rehab, before medical treatment, before anything else WORKS.
The people who don't want the free house get the chance to refuse it, and the next person who didn't have one gets offered it. Complete non-issue.
The ugly truth is that many (most?) are addicted to drugs or alcohol and/or suffer mental illnesses that often include antisocial behaviors. You want those types of people roamingΒ yourΒ neighborhood? If you say you're fine with that, you're either lying or have never spent time around the homeless.
Yes, social welfare is the next thing you guys have to fix. And no, that's not communism.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Put the housing where they are. Fuck NIMBYs. It does not matter if a couple people take advantage, as long as the program overwhelmingly assists people in need.
they already roam my neighborhood, why not house them? why not get them help? the ones that the temp housing doesnt work for? those ones need more help. they come to my work. a lot. sure some homeless cause problems, but so do some homed. they are people the same as you are. would you want a warm bed if you were homeless? you wouldnt be homeless right? shit happens sometimes. maybe they were homeless first and alcoholics and drug abusers second. addiction changes people and sometimes they dont change back
If they are housed then they are off the streets and not in your face.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Disagree: we talk about it all the time. NIMBYs want them housed where they donβt have to look at them
load more comments
(2 replies)
Drag has lived in a homeless shelter. Drag wants the homeless to be housed and would be happy to have them in drag's neighbourhood.
..but make sure they are saddled with additional debt and are completely unemployable for the rest of their life with a criminal record. Give them less than no hope. Show them the cowardice of monsters worse than those that housed and fed the masses before they placed them in gas chambers. The feral human suicide machine of the USA is a crime against humanity.
House them in a rehab/mental health facility. Problem solved!
That'd make some sense since often behind the homelessness there's substance abuse, addiction or mental health issues. From what I know in Finland that's pretty much all homeless.
the cause of homelessness is pretty fucking obviously the price of homes, the fucking audacity to look at hundreds of thousands of employed people with otherwise normal lives who just cant afford to have a roof over their heads and proclaim that it is because they have mental health or drug problems rather than the self evident explanation that its corporate greed, its just something else.
Finland had in 2023 a total of 3429 homeless people. 2/3rds of those are temporary without home for a wide variety of reasons, including mental health or substance abuse issues, and that category is the main cause when talking about long term homeless that make up the remaining 1/3rd. I think based on that, saying "often behind the homelessness thereβs substance abuse, addiction or mental health issues" makes perfect sense.
load more comments
(8 replies)
This is an old-fashioned idea that an hour on Zillow will dispel.
Finland's government doesn't bend over backwards to fuck over its own citizens, so it would make sense if that's one of the only places on earth where the usual lie about the cause of homelessness being individual instead of societal is actually true.
I don't know what Zillow is but I'm of course talking about area around me since that's what I know. I think it's the same for everyone. Also not sure what lie you mean, I wasn't saying it's a personal issue. Addiction and mental health can have societal causes too.
Pretty sure those are prison a lot of the time.
Mostly the issue is shelters drug test and have curfews, and even then they fill up quick and have problems with theft and shit.
Sorry my statement was ambiguous. I mean we send those people to prison instead of trying to help them. So then prisons become the those things, but shittier.
Well, of course we usually only send people to prison if they've actually committed a felony, for homeless related stuff (that I don't even think should be a crime, but what am I gonna do) it's usually no more than a few days in jail or straight up catch and release. Prison is usually reserved for sentences longer than 2y.
I don't keep up with him as much these days but always thrilled to see old Bob is still around.
It's not expensive, it's great ~~slave~~ free labor!
-The United States
You can remove the strike through, it's literally slave labor. The US constitution never abolished slavery, just limited it. To prisoners.
it's expensive. very. but the taxpayers pay it.
I don't reckon they have any issue calling it slave labour, setting as how it's strictly allowed by their constitution.
This feels amendable
One would think that. Alas.
Flowey?
No, Flower.
view more: next βΊ