They investigated the incident but did not find any evidence of the alleged incident.

Pics or it didn’t happen.

So, what...? I guess there's a push to replace the term "homeless" with "unsheltered" now? Like that's supposed to somehow dress up the situation and be less offensive or some shit. Seems like another dumbass push by the social justice police to replace a word whose literal definition fits the use case, with one that vaguely fits but somehow seems less offensive because it's new. Then in 5 years, "unsheltered" will be considered offensive, and we'll have to figure out some new dumbass term, like "residence-challenged."

It’s used to humanize the people without homes. It’s not that deep. If anything, you sound like the one who is overly concerned about word use. It’s not about being offensive, it’s just about respect towards others.

Serious question, not being facetious: how is "homeless" different than "unsheltered". Is it the attached emotion or is it some semantics I am missing?

If people start throwing all their shade using the term "unsheltered drug users" and whatever other negativity they attached to "homeless", arent we going to have the exact same conversation in 5 years?

What is fundamentally different?

A good example is applying it to other traits. If someone has a mental illness, it’s a lot better to say they have ___ rather than they ARE ___. They are dealing with not having a home, but they shouldn’t be defined by the fact that they don’t. It’s not necessary offensive to call someone homeless, it’s just more stopping and respecting that they are a multi-faceted person with more to them than just being homeless. It’s not that big of a deal either way, but it makes a difference in how people are viewed. Just like certain words you can use to describe people are technically correct, but demeaning. Language evolves, so yes, i’m sure in 5 years we might have different terms. That’s not a negative thing!

Yeah, I just wonder if maybe trying to address the reason that we keep making these terms negative stereotypes instead of moving on to a different term might be a better solution. Obviously it's a more difficult one but you have to convince society to use the new term anyway.

At the end of the day, Xfinity is still Comcast even if they try to pretend they arent.

It’s more to highlight that not having a home is not a defining characteristic of who someone is, it’s a situation that anyone could find themselves in. It’s actually trying to dismantle stereotypes by showing that it isn’t some specific group of people. It’s not just changing terminology bc homeless is an insult, it’s changing it because the way that we speak about people can have a huge impact on how those same people are viewed. Homeless drug addict has a different connotation that unhoused person struggling with addiction, yknow? No one is pretending that it has a different meaning, it’s just about being respectful towards others. We can’t dismantle stereotyping without first recognizing the terminology associated with it. Just like “Jap” and “Japanese” have much different associations with them, despite “technically” meaning the same thing (i’m asian btw, that’s why i’m using it as an example, i’m not trying to say that homeless is a slur.) Hope this helps.

Yeah I definitely get the intended purpose, I just think there's going to have to be societal shift for it to have the effect that it is supposed to have. The people who think that renaming things is dumb are going to continue to use the old terminology and continue to be negative and the people who choose to use the new terminology were probably already respectful anyways.

Either way, I appreciate the time that you spent to explain it. Just wish that we had better results in practice.

> That was scheduled to happen last Thursday and was interrupted by various people," said Johnston, "So they stopped on Thursday."

It sounds like activists or the homeless managed to disrupt the clearance one day and somehow magically thought that meant it wouldn't continue. And it's not like someone wouldn't be aware of heavy machinery use--this pretty much has to be willful blindness to get scooped up.

The societal shift starts by being intentional with our thoughts and words. Then that leads to being more intentional with our actions.

Every fucking time an article uses the term, there's some ignorant asshat in the comments putting it down.

There's a difference between "homeless" and "unsheltered". If you live in a shelter you aren't unsheltered. If you crash with a friend after you lose your job, you aren't unsheltered. If you live in your car, you are not unsheltered. In all of those cases you are homeless because you don't have a home, but you are not unsheltered. Unsheltered is a precise term to describe people who are literally living on the street. It isn't some fucking agenda you piece of shit.

>Garvin also brought up concerns by an unsheltered woman who claims she was scooped up by a bulldozer and put in the dumpster.

>"They scooped you up, and they threw you in the dumpster?" Garvin is heard asking in the video. "Yeah and then I'm literally screaming but I was in the tent and I couldn't open it," the woman replied.

No.. If that happened, you wouldn't be walking afterwards..

If they didn't know you were there, using a loader, they would just continue to pile stuff in the dumpster, you would be crushed and/or impaled by other stuff being added to the dumpster.

If it has been a bulldozer, you would have been crushed against other stuff and perphaps run over, but not put in a dumpster. Bulldozers only push/scape. They don't lift.

It's technically a narrower group. "Homeless" also includes people who don't have a home but can find temporary shelter by sleeping at the workplace, in friends' homes etc. "Unsheltered" are really living on the street.

I don't think officials would use that to be "less offensive" towards these people. More plausible is they're using varying words to deflect from the severity of the problem.