Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

n000d1e t1_j60w3iv wrote

Reply to comment by PythonProtocol in Unsheltered advocates claim SLC didnt give notice, scooping woman into dumpster by vineyardmike

A good example is applying it to other traits. If someone has a mental illness, it’s a lot better to say they have ___ rather than they ARE ___. They are dealing with not having a home, but they shouldn’t be defined by the fact that they don’t. It’s not necessary offensive to call someone homeless, it’s just more stopping and respecting that they are a multi-faceted person with more to them than just being homeless. It’s not that big of a deal either way, but it makes a difference in how people are viewed. Just like certain words you can use to describe people are technically correct, but demeaning. Language evolves, so yes, i’m sure in 5 years we might have different terms. That’s not a negative thing!

0

PythonProtocol t1_j60ww7o wrote

Yeah, I just wonder if maybe trying to address the reason that we keep making these terms negative stereotypes instead of moving on to a different term might be a better solution. Obviously it's a more difficult one but you have to convince society to use the new term anyway.

At the end of the day, Xfinity is still Comcast even if they try to pretend they arent.

3

n000d1e t1_j60ycht wrote

It’s more to highlight that not having a home is not a defining characteristic of who someone is, it’s a situation that anyone could find themselves in. It’s actually trying to dismantle stereotypes by showing that it isn’t some specific group of people. It’s not just changing terminology bc homeless is an insult, it’s changing it because the way that we speak about people can have a huge impact on how those same people are viewed. Homeless drug addict has a different connotation that unhoused person struggling with addiction, yknow? No one is pretending that it has a different meaning, it’s just about being respectful towards others. We can’t dismantle stereotyping without first recognizing the terminology associated with it. Just like “Jap” and “Japanese” have much different associations with them, despite “technically” meaning the same thing (i’m asian btw, that’s why i’m using it as an example, i’m not trying to say that homeless is a slur.) Hope this helps.

3

PythonProtocol t1_j60z4ga wrote

Yeah I definitely get the intended purpose, I just think there's going to have to be societal shift for it to have the effect that it is supposed to have. The people who think that renaming things is dumb are going to continue to use the old terminology and continue to be negative and the people who choose to use the new terminology were probably already respectful anyways.

Either way, I appreciate the time that you spent to explain it. Just wish that we had better results in practice.

2

onandonandonandoff t1_j617t79 wrote

The societal shift starts by being intentional with our thoughts and words. Then that leads to being more intentional with our actions.

0