That was surely a great experiment. But it's very different from actual homelessness. I would have appreciated if the author had acknowledged that more. It's closer to a backpacker-in-a-tent-in-the-mountains experience than homelessness. In the latter, the living-in-a-tent is just a comparatively minor aspect of the experience.
This was a choice (essentially to save money) and the author had multiple fallback plans. Real homelessness is born out of desperation and lack of alternatives. Tragedies of mental health issues, abuse, severe financial distress, no savings, debt, warrants. No nice shower at the gym, no locker to keep a laptop and two suits. The constant fear of not just the police but also of getting robbed by another homeless, likely after something to sell for drugs. That's very different from anytime being able to crash on somebody's sofa to save on rent so you can earlier "afford to build companies".
We can even see it in one of the later paragraphs where potential spots in the bay area are evaluated. The local homeless should not be close. Oh, they shouldn't? That gives you an idea of the conditions actual homeless folks need to live under.
Author here. I get this view, I just think it's worth underlining how biased it is to the SF Bay area dystopian situation.
I've actually gone out of my way to meet homeless in the Bay. You'd be surprised how much of a continuum homelessness is. Most are definitely living hell on earth, but many I personally met have both fallbacks and money. Could be they're too attached to their family's image of them. Or that they weirdly enough have a better life now - I met a guy who led a small community and made quite some money from crime, he could have afforded to live anywhere, but this would mean taking a menial job like he had in the past, and he didn't want that.
Of course, the disclaimer is that many homeless care a lot about their self-image and will create stories to justify their current situation so it's hard to judge. But the point still stands that, even in hell of earth for the homeless, you'll find it's a continuum. And the world is much broader than SF - I've met people at every point of the spectrum, the most extreme being a multi-millionaire who lived Swiss forests for fun!
To summarize, there is no "actual homelessness", it's not a boolean but a spectrum, and I fail to see how gatekeeping the use of the most adequate word in this situation helps anyone.
If the problem is that it using the word comes across as disrespectful to people who mainly know homelessness through the prism of the Bay Area, maybe another avenue could be to add a link at the end of the article to promote a relevant NGO, which I'm definitely open to adding if people suggest a good one.
Jeez, our fellow eggheads are nit picking your story to the extreme. I loved your story because it's about problem solving. Your listing of the pros and cons is some of the best parts. Well done!
Some people like to treat homelessness as sacred. The image of a spotless victim, who has no choice but to suffer, is an object of veneration, even love.
It's an odd sort of worship but very common in the Bay Area.
> If something isn't important to know, there's no answer to the question of why people don't know it. Not knowing random facts is the default. But if you're going to write about things that are important to know, you have to ask why your readers don't already know them. Is it because they're smart but inexperienced, or because they're obtuse?
So you can claim to have been homeless, or have experience having been homeless, but then you will be judged as having that experience. That isn't how you presented the story, but as a successful experiment where living in a dorm for $450 a month was also a good option. The redeeming lesson from such an experiment is that "being homeless isn't that bad" because "you weren't really homeless" not because "others also could have somewhere to live". The two has completely different implications.
You aren't being "gatekept" out of bad faith, but because it is nicer to believe that you are mistaken than the alternative. Because if you claim to actually have been homeless the story reads more like you put yourself above the rules, didn't consider your friends and don't understand the difference.
I'm not sure where all your mentions of the Bay Area come from. I'm writing from a European perspective, and in all major European cities you find homelessness prevalent. And it's not pretty.
A millionaire in the Swiss forest is not homeless. Choosing to live in a tent is not homelessness. To me, the term "homeless" implies a lack of alternatives. As soon as it's a choice, to see romantic sunrises or fall asleep to ocean waves or whatever, that is, if calles "homeless", to me, a misuse of the term. It's a nice life, I've done it too and loved it, but I'd not start to call it "homelessness" and place myself into the same category as the poor souls sleeping under a bridge.
Of course it's a spectrum. Some folks have been forced out of their home and are living out of a car while finding a new place. That's homelessness. For some of those, it's temporary. For others, it's a spiral into misery, next is to lose the job, having a mental health issue, soon the car breaks down, and eventually they are sleeping under a bridge. Insubstantial of whether it's in SF, Berlin, Sao Paulo or Tokyo. Similarities to a concious choice are only superficial. Once it's a choice, it's outside the spectrum and is doing the fight against homelessness a disservice.
> To me, the term "homeless" implies a lack of alternatives
Why does it imply that? Many homeless have alternatives, but they aren't either applicable, or the person don't simply want that. Just as one example, a homeless person with a dog could probably get rid of their dog so they can stay at the homeless-shelter, but instead chose their close bond with their dog over that. Does that suddenly mean the person isn't homeless?
Another (personal example) is when I first arrived to Barcelona and barely could afford food. I spent two nights sleeping outside in the city instead of paying hostel fees, so technically I had the choice of spending a bit of money so I had roof for the night. Lets say that situation was longer instead of just two nights, would I not count as homeless then because I could have spent my money differently?
The homeless shelter situations in the bay area have waitlists. Some of the encampments also have waitlists (!). A lot of the homeless actually work in the bay area, some of them far away. Being in line in time to get a spot on a shelter is a task by itself and can be mutually exclusive with working. There is so much at play here you do not understand well. If we assume you are well meaning, you need to know that some politicians are not telling the truth about the true state of things.
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?
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.
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).
I think most people understand this, but in reality many homeless do have a choice in their living situation. This idea that they can’t possibly have chosen their life reduces the homeless to human-like primates with no agency. Often they have a sense of personal dignity and are capable of making their own decisions, despite how destitute we see their situation.
My experience is from São Paulo and Seattle but entertaining this notion that it's a thought-out choice full of intention is wild. Most homeless people just want some shade of stability and would leave that situation any day any time if given resources.
They are not primates with 0 agency but most societies don't really give them a lot of options.
You have no idea what is going on in the bay area homeless situation. I am not discounting your experiment, which was very interesting, but you cannot apply your experiences to the bay area homeless situation.
I find it useful that terms have meaning and one can distinguish between what belongs to it and what doesn't.
A pork steak is a piece of meat taken from a pig. Once it's made of beans or some mushroom it may still be tasty (and I love good veggie food), but it's not a pork steak.
Similarly, the term "homeless" also has a certain meaning, and using it for something else muddies communication waters. And at worst, it makes the fight against actual homelessness harder: Next time some tax dollar is planned to be used for relief, somebody will point to those cases and say "well some homeless enjoy the sunrise and love the outdoors and have two suits in locker, and ain't none of my tax dollars go to that!!"
If you want to call that "gatekeeping", then sure. What's the purpose of your comment then? Gatekeeping me and telling me I should not call out the misuse of the term?
Common meaning is the protocol prerequisite for understanding and very often undervalued.
Words bring vibrations? Perhaps I don’t know, but they bring very strong meaning very often and in most languages also, even though English being famous for the same word meaning different things in different contexts, the conveyed meaning itself is still very important.
And homeless implies less of something which can be a moral choice also, but still there’s the ‘less’ which is not there when your bank account has enough for other options. The mental less in homelessness is bitter and very often related to certain major calamity.
Gatekeeping words would be important if it were respected. Unfortunately it is not, when the context doesn’t favor a specific flavour of the outcome.
Example in France, “homeless” is called SDF, and it means “no home” (no fixed address to receive mail, although shelters allow mail) but doesn’t mean “no roof”. And that was done to include women, because women were practically not represented on the street, as they often have someone who can host them, even if they cannot call it home. There is no word (except derogatory like “Claudo”, or workarounds like “on the street”) to describe the homelessness that men suffer.
Now, since women represent 16% SDF, but most of them are hosted, they do not tend to die during winters. They do not tend to face street violence. They do not match those stats. Unfortunately, since they still represent 16% of SDF, they also get reserved budgets in addition to the budgets which are destined to homelessness in general (and which are themselves already allocated with a slant towards the female gender - the whole thing is absolutely despicable).
So, since words are perverted for political goals precisely in this area, I’d rather we let history written by the writers, with their own appreciation of the words’ meaning. The usual side will win again, but when there is an odd article not written in “the correct way”, let it live.
Are you saying it's not actual homelessness because it was a choice?
Wikipedia says homelessness is "the condition of lacking stable, safe, and functional housing". It doesn't say anything about it having to be a choice. I know people who say they're homeless by choice. Would you say that's an oxymoron?
In the US, you can live in campgrounds year round in a tent. Usually a nominal fee with access to amenities. Similarly, author of the article chose to live in a tent right next door to the University where he had access to amenities. I can totally see the analogous situation here. It was a way to save money not a necessity. Both situations don’t make you homeless.
That’s my takeaway and others on the difference here. Homelessness driven by choices then turn into necessity to live. I don’t think responding to the sentiment with technical definitions from Wikipedia is the right discourse either (as done in other comments not yours). You can see the problem with this story without having to cite your comment to try to bring some strength to it.
Technically speaking, you can if you move. Author of article was illegally camping so I don’t think the same idea applies. I was referring to the idea of camping somewhere intentionally with amenities for fun not to live. Author could have had an apartment or other places to look into but chose not to. That doesn’t make them homeless
By the definition you have provided though, someone that has access to stable, safe or functional housing but then chooses to not to use it (eg opting to camp instead), is not homeless.
Edit: the word “lack” really is the key word. This implies no choice, right?
I don't follow what you're getting at. OP did not have the budget to afford a house so he had to go homeless. He could have made other choices to afford a house sure, but many other homeless people could also theoretically make choices that would enable them to get housing.
The author has the opportunity to make choices about their situation, homeless people lack that choice, they can't just go get a job, or they can't get the money together for a deposit. They can't afford to travel to where the work is.
Theoretically they could choose to get treatment for addiction or mental health problems, but practically that isn't available to them.
> The author has the opportunity to make choices about their situation, homeless people lack that choice,
As adjudicated by whom?
> they can't just go get a job, or they can't get the money together for a deposit. They can't afford to travel to where the work is.
Many could actually. Some could move to lower cost of living areas. Some could choose to get education or training that enables them to get a job in the future. Some could get jobs, some could certainly move to where there are jobs. Some could choose to quit recreational drugs and alcohol. Some could use their welfare or disability payments and move to lower cost of living areas. Some who dislike living with others could choose to put housing above that preference and could afford move into group housing. Many do these things actually, I have heard many first hand stories from people getting themselves out of homelessness.
So how are we weighing up all these choices and deciding who is a "valid homeless" and who is not?
When I went to college, I had a PO box. Not sure how it works in Hong Kong, but I presume something similar. My apartment on campus did not have a PO Box but my college did.
I can lack(/not have) a jacket because I choose not to bring one with me. I don't think lack necessarily makes any assertions about choosing to lack something.
Words have connotations. The word "homeless" has very strong connotations of poverty and the associated lack of options, i.e. lack of choices.
So yes, considering it not to be actual homelessness if it's a choice is perfectly reasonable. You can't wikipedia-lawyer your way to a functional understanding of natural language.
This shouldn't be downvoted even though it is a jaded take. I think this is EXACTLY what is on full display from all sides in this thread (to the point that it should get probably get locked).
> I know people who say they're homeless by choice.
To me, that's a blatant misnomer. Elon Musk also calls himself "homeless". (By choice, quite obviously.) There is not much to discuss once the term is assigned that meaning.
Homelessness is a somewhat broad category though. There's lots of people couch-surfing between friends and their car. They're also in a very different position from people who are sleeping rough.
I only experienced traditional rough sleeping homelessness once when my "house" (my van) was towed and I had to sleep in an hostile architecture bus stop bench that had ridges between each "seat" area. Otherwise, I was technically "homeless"/vanliving in SV from about 2010-2019.
van is a home if you have your stuff in it, live in it, and enjoy moving around, this does not make you homeless, sorry. is a home on wheels and can be very comfortable should you decide so.
I commented instead of downvoting. However, to speculate, you implied a person isn't homeless if they have a van. You were responding to a comment containing:
> I was technically "homeless"/vanliving
Wherein they were relating their experience and recognized that they were vanliving (living in their van as their home) and even quoted their use of homeless, calling themselves "technically" so.
Even someone living in a tent or sleeping on the ground, if they keep returning to a site could say that site was their home. Some say the world is their home or that the region they stay in is. They would still be very clearly considered homeless despite having a "home".
As I understand it, it is a gray area whether vanliving is legal. You are allowed to park a vehicle but the owner doesn't have unlimited right to leave the van in one spot and live there. Even living in a van on your own land can be against code. People sleeping rough generally have no recognized right to sleep where they do. They are frequently moved and more often harassed. The situation is similar for those living in a van.
Anyway, that aside and trying to speculate about your downvote(s?), the context was that you started a language specificity discussion with someone who appeared to be unsure about the right words and hesitant to call themselves homeless. There were plenty of places on this thread to have that discussion but this doesn't seem an appropriate spot to me. I don't know whether that poster even knows you responded but if they do, I could see your response causing some difficult thoughts and/or emotions.
I doubt you intended harm but it can be helpful to consider the context to minimize the risk of harm or even just better understand the diverse manners in which your comments could be received. Hope you enjoy commenting here and learn from it and the comments of others.
It's the same Kevin Dahlgren. I don't know the complete story, but he allegedly wrote off transactions under fake names when doing work for the municipality of Gresham. I did remember reading somewhere that the goods he bought were given to the homeless but I don't remember where I read it.
Regardless I still really enjoy reading his blog.
> also this seems a really entitled take to say, "there is no homelessness" when there clearly is.
He's never said that and that's not the point of the article I linked either. Kevin has dedicated his life to recording the life of homeless people so he's clearly aware of it's presence. I think his work is quite important. There doesn't appear to be many people researchig homelessness who actually spend time on the street interviewing them. His posts and videos have given me a whole different view of homelessness, most of which in more vein of what the first commenter here was talking about. But it has also taught me that homelessness can be quite diverse.
If you're interested in the life of the homeless at all you should definitely read some of his blog. His collaborations with Tyler Oliveira on YouTube are also extremely interesting.
Stuff that we consider abnormal (homelessness, migration/seeking asylum, etc.) is at some point personal decision („I'm going to try to move to the next country, whatever it takes”), even if usually are not perceived as real choices, e.g. when the alternative is a lack of food or to sustain persecution. But a decision nonetheless, and one that will be taken by resourceful people, those who can spend a night or a fortnight in a tent.
If you know how to survive in a forest, you're a good candidate for a homeless or a migrant. Such decision point might be closer than you think.
Calling it a "choice" to seek asylum in another country because of war or threat of death in someone's home country for e.g. sexual orientation reasons is beyond cynical and cruel.
I truly hope you will never be in such a situation and then meeting somebody telling you that you are a refugee because of a choice you made.
The step from "it's a choice" to "it's your fault" is very small. There is a whole industry of populists thriving on the lack of distinguishing between these two.
Tech people often miss the social connotations such terms bring with them. Understandable, as many got into tech because of its clear definitions and lack of ambiguity and baggage, but the real world just doesn't work that way, and we have to acknowledge this.
This is HN, not fediverse, I thougt we can have a discussion that would involve making a distinction on this nuance (choice vs decision vs responsibility vs fault), instead on casting general aspersions, as is the case in other social media.
Not my choice, but my decision. It's not a question of responsibility of the a priori situation, but the moment that I snap and decide I can't take it any more. I need to do something. And not doing something is also a decision.
I helped a bit as a volunteer in an orga that among other things worked with refugees and I heard their stories. Every single one had this moment that one day they have risen and took ownership of their lives, instead of succumbing to helplessness. If they didn't, they probably wouldn't make it. That is something to admire.
One thing migrants and homeless need is to recognise they're humans that are disposed to make decisions about themselves, by themselves. To deny that is cruel, because it's inhumane. Humans can make decisions, non-humans can not. I don't know how it is on other side of the pond, but over here in Europe there's a big campaign to portray refugees (and all migrants) as non- (or sub-) humans, and denying them agency is part of that effort.
Right. And just as little as a refugee can decide their way out of the situation that their home country is in chaos and war, a homeless person rarely can decide their way out of poverty. The latter may have made choices earlier in life that contributed to their situation, but just claiming "well it's their choice that they are homeless" is not doing justice to the situation out there. Unless of course the situation is a choice, like for Elon Musk. At any point he could move into a permanent home wherever. It's absurd to use the same term for his situation as for an average person living under a bridge in SF.
I don't know SF homeless, but if you'd come ove here, you'd be surprised. Some of the refugees I met were “normal people” in their previous years, smart, well educated, well paid, resourceful. Some of them were much, much richer than me. That's simply because the poor in their country lack the means to even start the journey. They are those who have no choice but to rot to death (sometimes literally, sometimes figuratively). But not those who chose to leave the circumstances.
I'm not sure about the exact context of the language you quoted(not a native speaker), but ISTM you mean “well it's their choice that they are homeless” as somehow demeaning. Is it used in your country as a rhetorical device to imply that a person could have just chosen not to be poor (or persecuted), and then as an excuse not to help someone in need? That's very wrong and not matching reality I saw. Usually the choice was to either flee or something even worse happens to him/her (or the family).
This was a choice (essentially to save money) and the author had multiple fallback plans. Real homelessness is born out of desperation and lack of alternatives. Tragedies of mental health issues, abuse, severe financial distress, no savings, debt, warrants. No nice shower at the gym, no locker to keep a laptop and two suits. The constant fear of not just the police but also of getting robbed by another homeless, likely after something to sell for drugs. That's very different from anytime being able to crash on somebody's sofa to save on rent so you can earlier "afford to build companies".
We can even see it in one of the later paragraphs where potential spots in the bay area are evaluated. The local homeless should not be close. Oh, they shouldn't? That gives you an idea of the conditions actual homeless folks need to live under.