Despite having many seemingly progressive views, many people who identify as liberal still support laws that make it illegal for the unhoused to exist in public spaces. The Onion asked liberals why they believe homelessness should be criminalized, and this is what they said.
“I’m fiscally liberal and socially a monster.” is going in the ol file cabinet.
this is the only argument ive heard that hasnt made me angry. but it still doesnt help them. its just a virtue signal. you can still say “homeless people have a right to housing and the fact that they are homeless is directly caused by capitalist/landlord exploitation”
Oh absolutely. It’s a tiny change that means basically nothing. Takes no effort to use and I slightly prefer it, but it’s absolutely not worth arguing about ever as long as the point of “house them” is agreed on
100%. im not gonna argue against ur word preference since we agree on what matters, in fact i appreciate the extra context on why u prefer “unhoused”. its the liberals who do the same that annoy me bc i know their support starts and ends w this civility language policing bs
It’s the kind of discussion that could actually make sense within an org who focuses on unhoused activism. The extension of that into Twitter threads is nonsensical.
We don’t have this debate whatsoever over here in the UK. The only terms that matter have strict definitions. Homeless? Everyone without a form of permanent residence (includes sofa surfers living with friends). Sleeping on the streets? They’re called Rough Sleepers. This gives a clear and well-defined way to differentiate between those in the highest short-term need vs those with long-term needs.
There’s legitimately no point whatsoever in quibbling about terminology outside of strict definitions other than as a means of side-tracking debate and claiming moral ground that is entirely undeserved.
this is the only argument ive heard that hasnt made me angry. but it still doesnt help them. its just a virtue signal. you can still say “homeless people have a right to housing and the fact that they are homeless is directly caused by capitalist/landlord exploitation”
Oh absolutely. It’s a tiny change that means basically nothing. Takes no effort to use and I slightly prefer it, but it’s absolutely not worth arguing about ever as long as the point of “house them” is agreed on
100%. im not gonna argue against ur word preference since we agree on what matters, in fact i appreciate the extra context on why u prefer “unhoused”. its the liberals who do the same that annoy me bc i know their support starts and ends w this civility language policing bs
It’s the kind of discussion that could actually make sense within an org who focuses on unhoused activism. The extension of that into Twitter threads is nonsensical.
100%
We don’t have this debate whatsoever over here in the UK. The only terms that matter have strict definitions. Homeless? Everyone without a form of permanent residence (includes sofa surfers living with friends). Sleeping on the streets? They’re called Rough Sleepers. This gives a clear and well-defined way to differentiate between those in the highest short-term need vs those with long-term needs.
There’s legitimately no point whatsoever in quibbling about terminology outside of strict definitions other than as a means of side-tracking debate and claiming moral ground that is entirely undeserved.