This has got to be a culture difference. In Australia, if you say sleeping rough, we know what it means, with all the negative connotations you describe. Well, usually not starving.
Nope. If you’re sleeping on a friend’s couch, you are “unhoused”. If you’re sleeping in your car (not great, but way better than sleeping rough) you are unhoused.
They are two different things. And sleeping rough is not offensive, and not cute, and it does not reduce the idea to something cute. It is a blank description of what is going on. Everyone who is affected by it or works in the field knows what it means.
And sleeping rough is not offensive, and not cute, and it does not reduce the idea to something cute.
‘Sleeping rough’ sounds variously like having a neighbor who has ragers until 3am and/or camping in the woods to me, so annoying or cute. Maybe its a Euro v. U.S. “Lift vs. elevator” thing though.
Everyone who is affected by it or works in the field knows what it means.
And everyone who isn’t affected by it and doesn’t work in the field, or to put it succinctly, the overwhelming majority of people, can intuit what “unhoused” means: Without a house.
The whole point is, being a pedant about it makes zero difference whatsoever to the people who sleep in the streets, and your dithering is beyond pointless.
I said one line about how one wording was more clear and the person responding to me dropped two paragraphs about how his linguistic choice was superior. You are attacking the wrong person if you’re mad about dithering.
My main problem is that you don’t know that unhoused, which is a term I use in this field, is not the same as sleeping rough, another term I use in the field. Sleeping rough is what you might call sleeping on the street; it’s the stereotypical dossing on a park bench or in a cardboard box under a bridge, etc.
Unhoused is the umbrella term, including rough sleepers, people in their cars, people couch surfing, people in hotels that they can’t afford for very long, etc.
I think you’re right that it’s a cultural thing; here in Australia we’d say unhoused (or homeless) and rough sleeping without anyone blinking an eye.
What do you call it in your neck of the woods when someone is both unhoused, ie without a home, and sleeping in a public place, vulnerable to strangers and the elements?
My main problem is that you don’t know that unhoused, which is a term I use in this field, is not the same as sleeping rough, another term I use in the field.
I mean, I did say, “And everyone who isn’t affected by it and doesn’t work in the field, or to put it succinctly, the overwhelming majority of people, can intuit what “unhoused” means: Without a house.” I get that in a trade folks might have their trade specific name for stuff, but often you use that with average person and you’re gonna lose them. E.g. The sociological definition of racism vs. the common one, or calling them stanchions instead of something like barrier ropes.
What do you call it in your neck of the woods when someone is both unhoused, ie without a home, and sleeping in a public place, vulnerable to strangers and the elements?
I don’t think the U.S. differentiates all that much, it all gets lumped under ‘homeless’ or ‘experiencing homelessness’ in more progressive areas, which IIRC the rationale is that it changes it from a noun/identity to a verb/shit that’s happening to them, but I may be a bit off there as it has been a while.
People might be more interested if you call it what it is instead of giving it a cutsey name.
Like calling dead baby cow veal
Everyone who cares about it knows veal is icky for some reason, even if they don’t know why.
Anyway, what exactly is the fucking problem with sleeping rough as a description? It sums up the problem pretty succinctly.
Sleeping rough sounds like you need a new pillow. Homeless, starving, dying, there are better words.
This has got to be a culture difference. In Australia, if you say sleeping rough, we know what it means, with all the negative connotations you describe. Well, usually not starving.
I haven’t heard the phrase before (Canadian) and I’d picture camping. Like, on purpose.
Interesting! This is yet another example of me thinking a local peculiarity is a universal experience.
“Unhoused” states it far more plainly.
Nope. If you’re sleeping on a friend’s couch, you are “unhoused”. If you’re sleeping in your car (not great, but way better than sleeping rough) you are unhoused.
They are two different things. And sleeping rough is not offensive, and not cute, and it does not reduce the idea to something cute. It is a blank description of what is going on. Everyone who is affected by it or works in the field knows what it means.
‘Sleeping rough’ sounds variously like having a neighbor who has ragers until 3am and/or camping in the woods to me, so annoying or cute. Maybe its a Euro v. U.S. “Lift vs. elevator” thing though.
And everyone who isn’t affected by it and doesn’t work in the field, or to put it succinctly, the overwhelming majority of people, can intuit what “unhoused” means: Without a house.
The whole point is, being a pedant about it makes zero difference whatsoever to the people who sleep in the streets, and your dithering is beyond pointless.
I said one line about how one wording was more clear and the person responding to me dropped two paragraphs about how his linguistic choice was superior. You are attacking the wrong person if you’re mad about dithering.
My main problem is that you don’t know that unhoused, which is a term I use in this field, is not the same as sleeping rough, another term I use in the field. Sleeping rough is what you might call sleeping on the street; it’s the stereotypical dossing on a park bench or in a cardboard box under a bridge, etc.
Unhoused is the umbrella term, including rough sleepers, people in their cars, people couch surfing, people in hotels that they can’t afford for very long, etc.
I think you’re right that it’s a cultural thing; here in Australia we’d say unhoused (or homeless) and rough sleeping without anyone blinking an eye.
What do you call it in your neck of the woods when someone is both unhoused, ie without a home, and sleeping in a public place, vulnerable to strangers and the elements?
I mean, I did say, “And everyone who isn’t affected by it and doesn’t work in the field, or to put it succinctly, the overwhelming majority of people, can intuit what “unhoused” means: Without a house.” I get that in a trade folks might have their trade specific name for stuff, but often you use that with average person and you’re gonna lose them. E.g. The sociological definition of racism vs. the common one, or calling them stanchions instead of something like barrier ropes.
I don’t think the U.S. differentiates all that much, it all gets lumped under ‘homeless’ or ‘experiencing homelessness’ in more progressive areas, which IIRC the rationale is that it changes it from a noun/identity to a verb/shit that’s happening to them, but I may be a bit off there as it has been a while.