"Taliswoman"...

sideshowbob said:
Our local newspersons have converted "homeless people" to "people experiencing homelessness". I don't know if that makes it more pleasant
Click to expand...

Stupid

"homeless people" operative word "homeless" = focus on the word homeless drawing attention to lack of homes FOR people

"people experiencing homelessness" operative words "people experiencing" = are they a bunch of politicians sleeping outside with homeless people to have a one night experience? (The situation has happened)

:)
 
Michael 345 said:
Stupid

"homeless people" operative word "homeless" = focus on the word homeless drawing attention to lack of homes FOR people

"people experiencing homelessness" operative words "people experiencing" = are they a bunch of politicians sleeping outside with homeless people to have a one night experience? (The situation has happened)

:)
Click to expand...
No. The whole point of the term change is to TREAT THEM AS PEOPLE.
The word "Homeless" is NOT A PERSON.


Talking about "homeless" dehumanizes the person. It is as simple as that.
 
DaveC426913 said:
"Beginning in the 2010s" is pretty relevant.
Click to expand...
And so is changing "by 2021".

"Beginning in the 1910s", Zeppelins were fairly common - but "by 1940" that changed.
DaveC426913 said:
Is the perjorative use real? Does it apply to real people? Are there people who identify as having superior egos?
Click to expand...
Yes.
DaveC426913 said:
Or is it a label, made by third parties, and slyly referring to that shadowy, hypothetical "they"?
Click to expand...
I myself am a woke-advocate. I'm not a third party.
DaveC426913 said:
Is it a way to dilute the real world problems of injustice by drowning it in the semantic discussion of weasel-words?
Click to expand...
"Woke" is a weasel-word. It's an all-talk-and-no-action word.
 
Last edited:
DaveC426913 said:
When Michael said he wishes the "woke" people would "go back to sleep"
Click to expand...
Moi is wishing my "go back to sleep" on those who highjacked woke at the start and now, observing how woke is being passed around I truely feel sorry for woke

:)
 
DaveC426913 said:
I agree - inasmuch as I think Sarkus' "temporary condition" theory is wrong.
Click to expand...
Maybe awkwardly phrased, but the main point I was trying to make was that they are not their condition, as you more elegantly stated. Whether temporary condition or not....
My assertion - that they are people first and homeless second - is the correct reason. I'm pretty sure that will be borne out if we could find a source.
Click to expand...
Given that sideshowbob says that they have used it also for people with disabilities, I would agree with you.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Talking about "homeless" dehumanizes the person. It is as simple as that.
Click to expand...
Nonsenense.

I've also heard them call those people "houseless".

I am houseless. I live in an apartment.

The term homeless emphasizes the problem. Yes, it is humans who are homeless but the fact that they are homeless is the real issue, not whether or not they are humans.
 
sideshowbob said:
And so is changing "by 2021".

"Beginning in the 1910s", Zeppelins were fairly common - but "by 1940" that changed.
Click to expand...
I think you're being argumentative.
I was a full grown adult in 2010, and used the term "woke" in its original meaning.
I am not obliged to "upgrade" to the latest faddish use of the term.
If I am talking about woke in the context of "alert to social and racial injustice", that is not by any means archaic.

sideshowbob said:
I myself am a woke-advocate. I'm not a third party.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you're saying here. You consider yourself superior and use the term on yourself in a perjorative way?


sideshowbob said:
"Woke" is a weasel-word. It's an all-talk-and-no-action world.
Click to expand...
No. The perjorative has risen to the fore. That doesn't oblige everyone to upgrade.

I have friend whose name is Karen. When I call her, am I actually calling her out as privileged? No. Other people don't get to change meanings on my behalf ofr words that are still in current use.
 
sideshowbob said:
The term homeless emphasizes the problem. Yes, it is humans who are homeless but the fact that they are homeless is the real issue, not whether or not they are humans.
Click to expand...
This is exactly backwards.

The problem is that those who have the power to do something about it don't have to think about the people, they effectively say "homelessness is a problem in the city". No mention of the people who experience misery, ill health (physical and mental), employment, family etc.

Throw some money at some houses and the problem goes away. No it doesn't.
 
DaveC426913 said:
The problem is that those who have the power to do something about it don't have to think about the people, they effectively say "homelessness is a problem is the city".
Click to expand...
How is that different from saying, "people experiencing homelessness is a problem in this city?" That makes it sound like the people are the problem.
 
We don't call them "disabled people"; we call them "people with disabilities". The logic is that they are people first. Their condition is not their identity.

"The blind guy" is as stereotyped as "the black guy".
He's not "The blind guy"; he's "The guy. With visual impairment."
 
DaveC426913 said:
We don't call them "disabled people"; we call them "people with disabilities". The logic is that they are people first. Their condition is not their identity.
Click to expand...
Calling them "disabled people" in no way implies that. The disability is the operative word. They have special needs because they are disabled, not because they are people.
 
sideshowbob said:
The stress ought to be on the homelessness, not on the humanity.
Click to expand...
This is exactly backwards.

The stress must be put on humanity. That's the priority. Houses are simply one tool. There are many, many other tools to help marginalized people.

Smarter minds than ours have put a lot of effort into this, I will find sources. Be patient.

"A rights-based approach to homelessness prevention means changing the way policy decisions and investments are made and ensures that a policy and funding framework is in place to hold all orders of government responsible for addressing their role in preventing people from becoming homeless, including health, child protection, justice, and others."
-homelesshub.ca


Bells: help me out here. Surely this is in your wheelhouse. What is the "science" behind "people first, special needs second"? I know I am right on this; how can I cite an authority on it?
 
Last edited:
sideshowbob said:
They have special needs because they are disabled, not because they are people.
Click to expand...
No. They have the same needs as everyone else.

They need to cross the street in heavy traffic.
They need to get to their third floor apartment.
They need a job to put a roof over their heads.

Those are things we must consider for everyone. They are not special needs. It just happens that so far we've only set up the crosswalks for people with working eyes. We've only set up apartments for people who can get to the third floor with stairs. We've set up workplaces to cater to those who can work an eight hour shift unsupervised.

That many of us have it easy is not their problem. They pay the same taxes as anyone and vote just like anyone. We don't cater merely to the abilities of the many; we cater to all citizens according to their rights. And we all have the same rights.
 
Last edited:
If a person is in a wheelchair and needs to get into a house that has steps, then they have a SPECIAL NEED for a wheelchair ramp.

The reason it is a SPECIAL NEED is because very few people require a wheelchair ramp to get into the house. So the need for a wheelchair ramp is a special need.

Sure everyone needs to get into their house, but not many people need a ramp to do that. So the NEED for a wheelchair ramp is a special need.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top