[joe_the_user]

Now to be "that asshole" why unhoused instead of homeless?

@dang, flagging. HN standards are basic civility, starting a comment with "I'll be an asshole" is clearly creating a pretext for violating HN standards.

I mean, "unhoused" is considered a more polite term among the people I work with, it just basic politeness, there is no other distinction I know about. I don't feel a need to respond to the rest of your argument when you start things that way, though I'll say they put a lie to your initial congratulations and are only tangentially related to the topic at hand ("You mentioned the unhoused there, well let me tell you about the unhoused...")

[grayhatter]

> I mean, "unhoused" is considered a more polite term among the people I work with, it just basic politeness, there is no other distinction I know about.

I was under the [mistaken?] impression the inverse was true. Or that neither had a significant preference, do you have any cite, or is this experience? Because I've heard from 2 different people no one they talked to cares, I've never bothered to try to verify and was happy to default to the single point I had (paramedic in SF), where I was explicitly told, the differentiator between the two wasn't based in reality. I assume you can understand how what I was told conflicts with your reality, and why I might also be confused?

> HN standards are basic civility, starting a comment with "I'll be an asshole" is clearly creating a pretext for violating HN standards.

Do you feel that my comment was actually in bad faith? Or are you just unhappy with the words I picked to express my question and confusion? I prefixed it with what I thought would be the context for, "I understand this question makes people angry, and I don't understand why", but that's a lot less interesting way to ask that question, and uninteresting questions get ignored. Any thoughts or suggestions for what I should have done different, other than pick different words I mean? (Ideally a suggestion that doesn't get ignored?)

> though I'll say they put a lie to your initial congratulations and are only tangentially related to the topic at hand

I was completely unable to parse this, thought I might just be too stupid, any help?

[jrowen]

As someone who didn't flag or downvote you, "unhoused" is the newer and currently more politically correct term. That's it. Pushing back on it is seen as pointless and unhelpful at best, and "anti-woke" aggression at worst. Ask yourself what you are fighting for there.

[grayhatter]

> Pushing back on it is seen as pointless and unhelpful at best, and "anti-woke" aggression at worst. Ask yourself what you are fighting for there.

Personally, I'm fighting for the idea that words mean things, and the 2nd best word wont do. I have multiple people tell me I'm doing it wrong, no matter which it is. If I'm going to change what I'm doing, I don't want to pick the worst option. More often than not, when someone tells you to use a different word (behave differently), but can't articulate why; it's about control.

I've never had someone tell me it's offensive to call them homeless, I have had people tell me I should feel bad for [trying to help] (rhetorically speaking, different example from this one). I merely want to do what's right, and make it as easy as possible, but I'm personally unable to when I don't understand why...

shrug

[jrowen]

> Personally, I'm fighting for the idea that words mean things, and the 2nd best word wont do.

Now ask if this battle is worth fighting with someone that is actually "just trying to do the right thing," on the front lines of gritty social work, and who may not care as deeply about the philosophical implications of linguistic prescriptivism at hand.

I can't really imagine what nefarious purposes someone might have in trying to control you into using the word unhoused vs. homeless, it doesn't seem to me an important hill to die on in this context.

[grayhatter]

> Now ask if this battle is worth fighting with someone that is actually "just trying to do the right thing," on the front lines of gritty social work, and who may not care as deeply about the philosophical implications of linguistic prescriptivism at hand.

Already asked and answered, rhetorically speaking. Because I don't care what their value system is, so much as feel it's important to stand within mine. I've done social work before; for about 4mo. Couldn't stand it, will never do it again. Am I greatful for OP for doing something I was unable to do? I was before they decided that I was asking in bad faith. Now I don't respect their opinion at all; (another critical internal value of mine, that I'm sure many people expect me to abandon for their benefit, but I've decided I'd rather ~~politely~~ rudely decline).

Which one of us is right? Or actually , I'd like to assert that what the other person cares about isn't a meaningful question in this specific context. Ideally, we'd each be allowed to spend our time on the hills we wish to die on, even if the other cares about a different hill.

If you don't care, let some who does care reply, for an open, public conversation, it's more respectful to ignore topics you don't care about enough to engage in. If some social worker doesn't care about my linguistic prescriptivision, it becomes better for someone that does to respond.

> I cat't really imagine what nefarious purposes someone might have in trying to control you into using the word unhoused vs. homeless, it doesn't seem to me an important hill to die on in this context.

I like my word better. I don't think it's nefarious. But it doesn't have to be. I like my word better. People are allowed to be wrong on the internet, and people are allowed to like things you don't.

Despite what OP may or may not want to believe, I actually care very deeply about avoiding needlessly offending people. But unfortunately for this example conversation, I've also been exposed to far too many people who get off on control for the sake of control. And have developed an unnatural aversion to it. Unlike most people, who I believe aren't willing to die on any hill, I'm actually willing to a hill. You might find my hills arbitrary and capricious, but I feel the same way about the hills you want to die on. And critically, no respect for people not willing to die on any hill.

I prefixed my original question with "that asshole" because I actually wanted half the reply I got, if op didn't give a shit, I was hoping/expecting him to ignore me, and for someone else (e.g. you) who's the willing to explain something seemingly obvious to me. "Oh, he's one of those assholes, I have more important things than to waste my time on him", contrasted with your response, which risked wasting time on a possible asshole, because maybe they are actually trying, and deserve some kind of helpful reply.

I'm weird, I can be insulted by specific people who I respect, but rarely offended. I'm blind to whatever nuance that causes normal people to be mad over words. I'm more likely to get mad if someone uses a misleading word but never a rude or insulting one. Rude doesn't register, I'm mentally incapable, I have to go out of my way, to figure it out. I find, for whatever reason, I can *only* use the most correct word, if you want my most correct to be non-offensive, I need to be able to understand exactly why. "It's the new political correct word? Oh is it? Holy shit, I'd better use the new word!" Is how I assume, (for comedic effect), everyone else is able to adopt a new word. My brain refuses to comply with that. I need something concrete to change my behavior. It's a defect I'm aware of, so it's just easier to describe myself as an asshole. Because it's obvious to the people who can see though it, and saves time with the people who can't and would just get mad at me at the end. Saves us both time if it's the prefix. I'm also used to people assuming bad faith, but still I'm never able to figure out why.