236
Youth rough sleeping in London falls by 45% (www.bbc.co.uk)
submitted 3 months ago by to c/upliftingnews@lemmy.world
24 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 89 points 3 months ago (23 children)

This is good, but I hate the people using the term "rough sleeping" or "rough living" to refer to unhoused people.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 23 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 40 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    I agree, but the thing is, for social work, this is to distinguish people who literally sleep outside of houses due to poverty from the people who currently do not have a stable place they live and are couch surfing with friends and family for an undetermined amount of time before they move into a more stable accommodation they are responsible for.

    As in, you can be homeless for a few months while you are moving between cities, but end up in an apartment after that, which is drastically different to having lost all your support networks and searching for a safe place to sleep each night in a city not knowing when you will get to have a fixed address and a bed to sleep in.

    That's the social work distinction between being in the broader category of "homeless" and "sleeping rough".

    Also, some homeless people are in the system and living out of shelters of various kinds, wheras others are outside the system and living on the street.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 11 points 3 months ago

    In Dutch we have a distinction between homeless and 'roofless', the latter being the general name for anyone sleeping outside or in a shelter. Whereas the first is used as a euphenism for anyone unhoused but has not been living on the street for multiple years. It's a different distinction, but just as imperfect imo; since you don't have 2 but 3 groups:

    1. The not in the system but not on the streets (yet), sleeping in their car or moving from couch to couch,

    2. The not sleeping on the street because the system is taking care of them (whether that system is functional or not, at least they're not in the cold),

    1. The ones surviving outdoors, voluntary or not.

    In the Netherlands we decided foreigners who come to do cheap labour can get housed by their employer, when they lose their job they lose their house. We also decided the system should not let foreigners in. We also decided the system is only for addicts and people with mental health issues. Maybe in other places with other rules these three groups are less distinctly divided, but either way: all three groups deserve a name that is not demeaning nor dismissive. You'll probably agree.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 35 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    as someone who was homeless just say homeless. don't say unhoused, it's stupid. None of us that are on the streets or were on the streets could give two shits what we were labelled. we all said homeless.

    saying things like "rough sleeping" or "unhoused" are just labels made up by people who have never and will never experience what we experience and think they're helping. the fact is most of us who were on the streets were helped by regular people on their own volition. Organizations and advocates were the LAST group to actually help and rarely, if ever, did.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 17 points 3 months ago (14 children)

    Do you honestly think the person sleeping outside gives a fuck how people describe it? The only thing they actually care about is the next thing to eat and a place safe from the weather.

    Source: slept rough.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago (13 children)

    People might be more interested if you call it what it is instead of giving it a cutsey name.

    Like calling dead baby cow veal

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago (12 children)

    Everyone who cares about it knows veal is icky for some reason, even if they don't know why.

    Anyway, what exactly is the fucking problem with sleeping rough as a description? It sums up the problem pretty succinctly.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Sleeping rough sounds like you need a new pillow. Homeless, starving, dying, there are better words.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    This has got to be a culture difference. In Australia, if you say sleeping rough, we know what it means, with all the negative connotations you describe. Well, usually not starving.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 3 months ago (7 children)

    "Unhoused" states it far more plainly.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (6 children)

    Nope. If you're sleeping on a friend's couch, you are "unhoused". If you're sleeping in your car (not great, but way better than sleeping rough) you are unhoused.

    They are two different things. And sleeping rough is not offensive, and not cute, and it does not reduce the idea to something cute. It is a blank description of what is going on. Everyone who is affected by it or works in the field knows what it means.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    And sleeping rough is not offensive, and not cute, and it does not reduce the idea to something cute.

    'Sleeping rough' sounds variously like having a neighbor who has ragers until 3am and/or camping in the woods to me, so annoying or cute. Maybe its a Euro v. U.S. "Lift vs. elevator" thing though.

    Everyone who is affected by it or works in the field knows what it means.

    And everyone who isn't affected by it and doesn't work in the field, or to put it succinctly, the overwhelming majority of people, can intuit what "unhoused" means: Without a house.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    The whole point is, being a pedant about it makes zero difference whatsoever to the people who sleep in the streets, and your dithering is beyond pointless.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago* (3 children)

    I said one line about how one wording was more clear and the person responding to me dropped two paragraphs about how his linguistic choice was superior. You are attacking the wrong person if you're mad about dithering.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    My main problem is that you don't know that unhoused, which is a term I use in this field, is not the same as sleeping rough, another term I use in the field. Sleeping rough is what you might call sleeping on the street; it's the stereotypical dossing on a park bench or in a cardboard box under a bridge, etc.

    Unhoused is the umbrella term, including rough sleepers, people in their cars, people couch surfing, people in hotels that they can't afford for very long, etc.

    I think you're right that it's a cultural thing; here in Australia we'd say unhoused (or homeless) and rough sleeping without anyone blinking an eye.

    What do you call it in your neck of the woods when someone is both unhoused, ie without a home, and sleeping in a public place, vulnerable to strangers and the elements?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    My main problem is that you don’t know that unhoused, which is a term I use in this field, is not the same as sleeping rough, another term I use in the field.

    I mean, I did say, "And everyone who isn’t affected by it and doesn’t work in the field, or to put it succinctly, the overwhelming majority of people, can intuit what “unhoused” means: Without a house." I get that in a trade folks might have their trade specific name for stuff, but often you use that with average person and you're gonna lose them. E.g. The sociological definition of racism vs. the common one, or calling them stanchions instead of something like barrier ropes.

    What do you call it in your neck of the woods when someone is both unhoused, ie without a home, and sleeping in a public place, vulnerable to strangers and the elements?

    I don't think the U.S. differentiates all that much, it all gets lumped under 'homeless' or 'experiencing homelessness' in more progressive areas, which IIRC the rationale is that it changes it from a noun/identity to a verb/shit that's happening to them, but I may be a bit off there as it has been a while.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    That's fair. It's a minor point of jargon, after all. I would assume that homelessness, as people talk about it where you are, generally does not include the couch-surfing or hotel room that you can't afford for long, etc, so there's no need for a term like sleeping rough.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago*

    I'm not it's biggest fan either, but both terms are commonly used in the United Kingdom, and without inherent malice for the most part.

    I agree that we should be trending towards "the unhoused" or other more dignified terms, whereas counterintuitively "the homeless" is a perfectly acceptable term elsewhere in the world but stigmatised in the UK.

    In short: 🤷‍♂️

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent