• Grimy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    They are synonyms. Please don’t make things up.

    Edit: to all the knee-jerk downvoting. This is literally a quote from an article the user himself supplied as proof that there is a difference.

    Unhoused is probably the most popular alternative to the word “homeless.” It’s undoubtedly the one I see most often recommended by advocates. But it doesn’t have a meaningful difference in connotation from the more common term, “homeless.”

    It’s literally just a pc synonym of homeless.

      • Grimy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Yes, but academically and more broadly in society, homeless means unhoused (by broadly in society, I mean in the common language like how third world is a synonyms for developing country even though academically it means something else.)

        Important to note that he said in the US, not his hometown dialect or something. It’s a blanket statement that is completely wrong no matter how you look at it.

        • WesDym@mastodon.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          @Grimy Canadian English is a dialect. So is US English. And both have sub-dialects, as well as registers. These are real differences that really do affect how specific words are used and understood.

          • Grimy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            In US English, unhoused means homeless. I’m saying that it is used and understood as a synonym (you can’t argue this point either way without rhetoric) and that it is also officially considered a synonym (you can argue this point by opening a thesaurus).

            I understand your point, it’s just wrong in both cases. Instead of explaining it, back it up or am I to believe you just because you can quote the wiki on rhetoric? I guess rhetoric only applies to the other person.

            • WesDym@mastodon.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              @Grimy Get over yourself.

              And goodbye. There’s plenty of hopelessly tiresome people online already, and no one needs more.

              And grow the fuck up already.

        • WesDym@mastodon.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          @Grimy You are relying on a rhetorical device called an essentialism: an assertion of fact without evidence, a claim asserted as established fact without supporting argument or proof. Put another way:

          Things aren’t true just because you say they are, no matter how sure you are.

          Essentialism isn’t merely poor forensics. It’s very literally gotten millions of people killed.

          We always want to make every effort to use good forensics in arguments.

          I don’t believe you actually KNOW the facts.