[iainctduncan]

This is not homelessness. This is "bandit camping". Not a value judgment on the act - when I was young climbing bum I did me a fair bit of it. But calling it homelessness is pretty insulting to the actual homeless, who aren't doing it by choice to optimize their time for a relative luxury.

[istjohn]

There's a place for policing language, but you're not doing anyone any favors by gatekeeping homelessness. This is not involuntary homelessness, but then a large number of unhoused people could live under a roof if they were willing to accept certain tradeoffs, whether that be living with an abusive spouse, with an estranged parent, in a sober house, or far away from a community of friends. There are unhoused people who could scrape by in menial, arduous--and possibly dangerous--jobs who instead choose to live life on their own terms.

Trebaol was not forced into homelessness, but he was not play-acting or apeing a lifestyle for kicks. He was in a situation where he judged squatting four and a half months illegally in the jungle was worth saving a mere $2,000.

If you prefer to describe your past lifestyle as bandit camping instead of homelessness, by all means do so. But don't insist the rest of the world conform to your arbitrary redefinition of a term from its everyday meaning because it doesn't always fit your preconceptions.

Are you really helping the unhoused by insisting that someone is only truly homeless if they are schizophrenic, strung out on fentanyl, or otherwise totally incapable of being a productive member of society?

[righthand]

No but it definitely normalizes the issues around homelessness as no big deal when you write something where you’re intentionally homeless for financial gain.

[jwilber]

Does it? How so? If anything it showcases some of the trials otherwise unknown to those who don’t face them (eg weather, tent mold).

[throwanem]

Those are trials of camping. The cops coming and tossing your tent and everything else you own in a dumpster, that's a trial of homelessness.

[mholm]

This was specifically addressed in the blogpost. This is illegal in Hong Kong too.

[yusina]

And it didn't happen and if it had then he'd have crashed on a friend's sofa. And his laptop and two suits would have been safe in a locker at university.

An actual homeless person would have a quite different experience of a bust.

[locallost]

Yes it does. A real homeless person doesn't go to the gym everyday to shower, or avoids bringing food to his tent but it's ok because "I can eat at the university", or charges his devices every day at the same university, or sleeps at their friend's place when the weather is too dangerous.

If was an interesting read and experiment, but it has its limitations as a real world comparison to homelessness.

[5mv2]

You're right that this situation was very privileged. But there's not such thing as a "real homeless", it's a continuum. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44215698

Also, virtually all the "real homeless" I met went to the gym to shower.

[gosub100]

A real homeless person defecates on the ground and dumps his trash wherever he goes. That is the reason they are unwanted

[codersfocus]

> But calling it homelessness is pretty insulting to the actual homeless

I'm sure homeless people have more pressing thoughts than what words nerds on the internet use to describe outdoor living

[righthand]

Not if the nerds on the internet are stirring the societal discourse around you. That affects the unhoused whether they care or not.

[Aunche]

Even assuming this is true, that doesn't make the article insulting. Myths about how housing does not follow supply and demand affect homelessness even more, but that doesn't make the person spreading these myths morally wrong.

[righthand]

> but that doesn't make the person spreading these myths morally wrong.

That’s a nice out for anyone who gets caught lying. “I didn’t think it was morally wrong to repeat lies.”

[HappMacDonald]

So you're protecting people from something that even you admit they don't care about?

[ehnto]

You can be affected by something and not care about it. You can be affected by things you don't even know about, like the way regulations shape the houses we can live in.

[t1E9mE7JTRjf]

I'm not sure this is entirely correct. Many have studied homelessness in an attempt to remedy it, and found that it is largely a choice* and thus near impossible to solve with resources from the outside.

*Sure, not a 'Hey, this looks fun' choice, more a conscious understanding of a tradeoff where homelessness is not choosing the alternative life.

[dang]

If there's a more accurate and neutral title, we can change it above.

Edit: I've taken a crack at it. If there's a better way, we can change it again.

[5mv2]

So sorry you had to spend time changing the title! Learning the lesson for next time.

[yusina]

I really appreciate the new title. It's doing the topic more justice.

[southernplaces7]

Oh get over yourself with this contrived bit of supposed offense. Aside from it being nonsense, are you yourself homeless, a representative of a group of homeless people, someone who interviewed a number of them and asked if they're "offended" by anyone who doesn't absolutely have to live outside also using the phrase "i'm living homelessly"?

Also, by your invented criteria for language monitoring, many homeless people in many cities would themselves no longer be considered homeless.

Quite a few of them could somewhere, under some circumstances, find a place to stay even though it cost them just a bit too much to like, just like the guy who created this clever and interesting post.

[jiggunjer]

Actually the ETHOS classification system for homeless focuses more on where a person is living as opposed to why they're living like that. OP would alternate between two categories.

[IncreasePosts]

What should you call this person without a fixed home? Perhaps "temporarily unhoused"?