Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

visionzero81 t1_j919a0h wrote

Reply to comment by baller410610 in Baltimore Sees Steep Drop in Unhoused Residents by real_human__bean

Lipstick on a pig

0

socatsucks t1_j91bcbm wrote

Well, not really. I think it’s important to remember that a house is a specific type of building, where as a home can be defined in many ways. Even if you are sleeping in a tent under a bridge, while it’s not a house you could still consider it your home. So, unhoused is a more accurate term.

This difference in verbiage can also affect how we view actions taken against the unhoused. I think some people see a tent city get busted up and what they see are a bunch of squatters being removed from an area they are “trespassing” on. But, if you consider that encampment their home, which it 100% is, then it can be easier to empathize with those unhoused people.

I know “wokeness” and PC culture are annoying, but words can shape how we view the world, so sometimes it’s important to utilize terms like this to better describe the thing.

12

visionzero81 t1_j91c2sw wrote

Is this a term that was coined by polling the impacted community or is it a term created by white women to feel better about themselves for doing nothing? Similar to the word Latinx which a majority of people from South American descent hate.

10

bmore t1_j91csfp wrote

Was homeless a term developed after polling the impacted community?

9

socatsucks t1_j91ften wrote

Can’t really speak to that. I just look at it from a linguistics perspective and to me it makes more sense to use the term unhoused. Most people still say homeless, so I think you’ll be fine if you want to keep using that terminology. No one is out here caring about words that much, except on the internet. The real world has bigger shit to worry about.

3

Ambitious-Brick-7790 t1_j91m78s wrote

People get brought in to hr everyday over this word salad bullshit now a days. Fuck the oppression Olympics

−3

socatsucks t1_j91u4p9 wrote

The term political correctness has existed since the early 1900’s, so this isn’t a nowadays thing. The past and the present are the same. People were mad about it back then too. 🤷🏻‍♂️

3

CaptainObvious110 t1_j923vxo wrote

What if a person is genuinely content with where they live? Maybe they do live in a tent or somewhere we don't normally think of as being a home, but why is that so awful? If you don't have enough money to afford rent, does that automatically mean you should only live where other people tell you to?

Those other people being folks that have a traditional place to live and have plenty of money as well?

Not to say that a person should be able to put a tent or tents just anywhere of course but at the end of the day there should be places where they can go. It seems to me that there are those who have solved their problem and just want to be left alone.

So rather harass them, focus on those that want to change their situation instead.

You also have the issue of there being some in the homeless population that aren't capable of maintaining a household. Sure, it may sound nice to give their own apartment or a room somewhere but who's going to maintain it if they cannot?

Now if you have proper facilities where their medical and other needs can be met then ok. But this isn't some monolithic group and can't be treated as such as a result.

1

socatsucks t1_j9285ur wrote

Yeah. We are saying the same thing.

1

CaptainObvious110 t1_j931vrb wrote

Good. So we have people who are without traditional places to live of their own. What CAN be done about it and what WILL be done about it?

The problem is not a secret and there is an ability to fix it, sadly not much desire to change the status quo

1

israeljeff t1_j91c542 wrote

Saying "wokeness" and pc culture are annoying undercuts your whole (correct) argument.

−4

sllewgh t1_j91j2g6 wrote

No it doesn't. Arguments undercut arguments, not feelings about buzzwords.

9

israeljeff t1_j91ndov wrote

Conceding to the other side's ridiculous points undercuts the argument.

−2

sllewgh t1_j91ny3t wrote

Let me know when you're ready to say anything about why they're ridiculous, then.

3

israeljeff t1_j91ojy4 wrote

...ok?

Complaining about "wokeness" is an instant admission that you have no idea what wokeness is or what it means. If you're asserting that it's bad to notice inequality and injustice, that would imply you're on the side of inequality and injustice. I think that's a pretty stupid thing to do.

0

sllewgh t1_j91oq2r wrote

Like I said, you need an argument, not just your feelings about words.

0

israeljeff t1_j91z5y9 wrote

It's not a feeling. The right uses "woke" as a catch all for anything they don't like, just like they did with pc in the 90s.

Use accurate terminology? Too woke.

Call people what they want to be called? Too woke.

Stop letting police get away with ignoring our rights? Woke.

...and so on.

2

sllewgh t1_j92ryyz wrote

Who cares? That doesn't impact whether the rest of their argument is right or wrong. It's totally irrelevant to what's actually being discussed here.

2

israeljeff t1_j92ykfz wrote

It only doesn't impact the argument if you're arguing in a vacuum and don't consider how your argument might work when actually trying to convince someone of your point of view rather than gaining fake internet points.

0

sllewgh t1_j93933o wrote

Didn't you yourself say that the argument was correct, but you're rejecting it anyway due to word choice?

1

israeljeff t1_j93e2r4 wrote

I'm not rejecting it, I agree with it, I said that. I just don't like the concession that wokeness is annoying.

1

sllewgh t1_j93fvfb wrote

So then you do agree it doesn't affect the argument. Great!

0

israeljeff t1_j93hoxt wrote

...no, because I already agreed with the argument.

What's the internet equivalent of talking slower? Bolding things? Would that help you?

1

CaptainObvious110 t1_j920g3j wrote

It's not about showing empathy or compassion for people who are disadvantaged though. Using flowery language doesn't change a person's conditions, no matter how well intentioned they may be but actual actions do.

Also, people express themselves differently and when you don't use "woke lingo" even if you mean the exact same thing by what you are saying people will still try to argue semantics instead of focusing on your actual message and that's a distraction from the actual issue.

0

israeljeff t1_j926ls4 wrote

If you use dismissive language about a group, the people you're trying to convince to help them will be dismissive. It's not complicated.

1

CaptainObvious110 t1_j931khs wrote

It's not complicated to see that you and and another person actually agree on something but that the actual discord is caused because that other person worded it differently than you

1

dopkick t1_j92femn wrote

> Using flowery language doesn't change a person's conditions, no matter how well intentioned they may be but actual actions do.

100% agreed with you man. This reminds me of a post on here that actually claimed people in West Baltimore have it bad because people on the internet say mean things about their neighborhoods, like calling them "bad."

I also sense a lot of "white savior" esque bullshit going on here - (see https://old.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/1152pbw/what_are_things_racist_people_do_that_they_dont/j8zmank/). A lot of folks harbor some massive narcissism and think the world revolves around their tiny slice of the universe. I bet homeless people don't give a shit what you call them if you can get them out of their situation. Results matter. Internet bullshit does not. Unless you're trying to promote your totally not narcissistic image on social media (people are).

The problem isn't "homeless" vs "unhoused" vs whatever. The problem is mental health issues. A healthcare system that is inaccessible. Mountains of process to get help. Clawing your way out of homelessness while the deck is stacked against you at every step. And on and on and on and on and on. That's the issue. This flowery language is white savior types who think they're the center of the universe and need to speak on everyone's behalf.

1

CaptainObvious110 t1_j92mzft wrote

Very well said. Oh and by the way... West Baltimore is any thing west of Charles St.

People fail to understand that Baltimore is quilt city and you have patches of good and patches of bad. This isn't to say that the people who live in each patch are all good or bad per se but that the area may be dangerous to be in especially if you aren't from there. Or it could be really nice neighborhood with plenty of amenities to enjoy.

Oh and if you think people are doing bad because you say mean things about their neighborhood. How do you account for a time when people referred to them by some really mean words and actually treated them as if they were less than human?

Arguing over semantics is a distraction from the real issues and sadly people get caught up in that all the time here

1

dopkick t1_j92omjj wrote

Honestly, I wish it was just a distraction. While it's definitely a distraction, I think it's also, quite unfortunately, a willful manifestation of massive amounts of narcissism. People want to make the issues that have little to nothing to do about them all about them. They want to be at the center of the universe and broadcast their stardom all over social media.

2

CaptainObvious110 t1_j932g40 wrote

Ding, ding, ding!! Who's more trustworthy? A person who helps you privately or a person that does good makes themselves look and feel better?

1

socatsucks t1_j91gd0n wrote

Whatever. I’m not trying to win debate class. Just offering a different point of view for our friend here.

2

The_Waxies_Dargle t1_j91dlk7 wrote

Can you suggest alternate, and equally or more accurate ways to describe what he's saying?

1

israeljeff t1_j91o0da wrote

The only thing I have an issue with is explaining why you'd want to use accurate or less hostile words, and then saying, in effect, that it's annoying to do so. It just undercuts the whole argument.

2