[ryeats]

Im still having trouble understanding why this destinction matters here. Your saying there is a difference between making choices that resulted in homeless being the only option and choosing homelessness because its the best available option?

[marci]

If at any point you can find a place of your choosing to rent within a few days without any hassle, you're not homeless. You're not in the category of person that could need help.

> Your saying there is a difference between making choices that resulted in homeless being the only option and choosing homelessness because its the best available option?

Absolutely. For example, if a city wants to build systems to help them, one group would need counseling, temporary housing, while the other would rather haver access to public showers, a dispensary, and another group none of that.

Let say you're in a place that attracts a lot of backpacker/vanlife, whatever you build there you would make people pay for it. There would not be any food bank close to that place.

[collingreen]

No, I think they are trying to say it would be helpful in the larger discussion of homelessness to have more nuance than just "not in a house" because, like both "sides" in the thread above keep hitting each other with, it's a wide, complicated, and nuanced topic.

The folks pushing for different words seems to be coming from a fear that grouping all "not sleeping in a home" into one bucket risks having stories like this (opt-in, mentally capable, not-in-deep-danger, safety net) make ALL homelessness seem easier or safer or a choice, which is a common pushback for helping people in modern politics (get a job, shouldn't have had sex/been dressed that way, shouldn't have tried drugs, etc). There is also a trauma of so much bad faith out there in the world right now making this kind of point implicitly on purpose (along the same vein as "I'm just asking questions").

They aren't phrasing it that succinctly but that's my good faith reading.

The holy war on the other side is "don't project your XYZ on my story" and "don't put words in my mouth" which seem valid to me given the context; I think someone should be able to tell their own story in good faith without being responsible for how other use it, within reason, which is likely not a terribly controversial take.

I personally see points in both sides and mostly think this is an issue because of the choice of venue. I think it isn't helpful to start an argument/debate without agreeing on what to argue/debate about and we're seeing that here (plus the topic being a proxy argument for a group of underlying political/social philosophy values not directly being discussed).