Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

Why does American culture keep coming up with nicer words for terrible things?

They aren’t “homeless.” They are “unhoused.” Do we really believe that homelessness will somehow be less awful if we make the word sound less harsh? Or do we simply do this to avoid taking responsibility as a society? Homelessness is awful, but being “unhoused” makes it sound more temporary.

The same can be said for addiction, mental health problems, poverty, etc. He’s not poor, he’s “economically challenged.”

by Anonymousreply 117January 24, 2023 9:38 PM

40 years ago, the Republicans got this started by openly admitting they wanted to make "liberal" a dirty word. The Republicans are master wordsmiths and will make anything remotely good for the American people sound bad. Making it worse, the left picked up on the trend and now make everything a dirty word, whether it's homelessness or anything turned into a "____ challenged", and don't get me started on the LGBTQLMNOP++ bullshit.

by Anonymousreply 1January 22, 2023 6:01 PM

I’m not homeless; I’m DOMESTICALLY CHALLENGED!!!

by Anonymousreply 2January 22, 2023 6:06 PM

It's a long-standing practice: if you are a despised minority, you decide as a group to change what you are called so you can own it and feel better about yourself.

"I am the author of the dictionary that defines me!" -- Star Jones

by Anonymousreply 3January 22, 2023 6:07 PM

Even Bart Simpson has gone Politically Correct:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 4January 22, 2023 6:10 PM

I'm not an "illegal alien," I'm UNDOCUMENTED!

by Anonymousreply 5January 22, 2023 6:21 PM

R51 I suppose with that one I could see it because "alien" kind of has a dehumanizing ring to it, where they aren't seen as human beings, but "aliens" which could be further deconstructed as a way to invoke fears of an "invasion". Whenever discussing it I simply call it what it is; illegal immigration. Though the point here does still have a leg to stand on, as far as the general trend of trying to soften all unpleasant words. It doesn't seem to accomplish anything substantial. .

by Anonymousreply 6January 22, 2023 6:38 PM

[quote]They aren’t “homeless.” They are “unhoused.” Do we really believe that homelessness will somehow be less awful if we make the word sound less harsh? Or do we simply do this to avoid taking responsibility as a society?

Have you given a single moment's thought for how such terms are regarded as pejoratives, and how they make the persons who are called by these epithets feel? What's wrong with making an effort to make them feel less stigmatized?

Or is it a case of the cruelty being the point?

[quote]Homelessness is awful, but being “unhoused” makes it sound more temporary.

Hopefully it is.

by Anonymousreply 7January 22, 2023 6:46 PM

I'm old, but people sound really old (yelling at the clouds) when you "rebel" against evolving labels and language.

by Anonymousreply 8January 22, 2023 6:48 PM

The phony hate plain-speaking.

by Anonymousreply 9January 22, 2023 6:53 PM

I rent an apartment so technically I’m “unhoused” as well. I understand some language evolution but this one seems pointless to me.

by Anonymousreply 10January 22, 2023 6:59 PM

Americans don’t…in my experience it’s always fat women from California who do this shit.

There’s a Podcaster named Joanna Robinson who has ruined one of my favorite podcasts (formerly known as Binge Mode) by injecting shit like unhoused, preferred pronouns, sex workers, neurodivergent and other bullshit terms into discussions about dragons and Hobbits.

by Anonymousreply 11January 22, 2023 7:05 PM

[quote]Have you given a single moment's thought for how such terms are regarded as pejoratives, and how they make the persons who are called by these epithets feel?

Oh, FFS, and in 5 years when they change it to “domestically undomiciled” because “unhoused” is too pejorative.

by Anonymousreply 12January 22, 2023 7:06 PM

Personally, I prefer corpulent. It has a much nicer ring to it.

by Anonymousreply 13January 22, 2023 7:07 PM

The fruit of "feminine logic".

by Anonymousreply 14January 22, 2023 7:08 PM

That is a bad habit on the left. Too many of us really do buy into some inane theory that if you just say the right magic words, all prejudice will evaporate. Enslaved Persons is another one. We get it. It means slave. It doesn't make everybody pause and contemplate the inhumanity of it all, or at least any more than "slave" did. It's just a new phrase, carefully policed, that accomplishes jack shit.

by Anonymousreply 15January 22, 2023 7:10 PM

It’s bullshit. And the worst of the woke. . It makes people on the far left and right feel like they’re doing something ad they continue to ignore the problem or be overwhelmed by it. It really is a lot of nonsense and accomplishes nothing. Insisting on “unhorsed”. never created a home for a homeless person living on the street.

by Anonymousreply 16January 22, 2023 7:14 PM

R7 If I were homeless I think living on the street would be a bigger disappointment than being called “homeless.”

by Anonymousreply 17January 22, 2023 7:17 PM

But, but, but, r17, words hurt. They hurt!

by Anonymousreply 18January 22, 2023 7:19 PM

I always feel like it’s less about hurting feelings and more of a purity test. If you’re willing to say “unhoused” or “undocumented” or ask what someone’s preferred pronouns are, you “pass.” If you dont, you’re next up against the wall

by Anonymousreply 19January 22, 2023 7:28 PM

Americans like lying to themselves for some reason. Bluntness and honesty is considered "mean" in this culture.

by Anonymousreply 20January 22, 2023 7:37 PM

[quote] Bluntness and honesty is considered "mean" in this culture.

No, that’s not true. Why, before my Aunt Rebecca met her reward when she passed away….

by Anonymousreply 21January 22, 2023 7:40 PM

One of those weird nuance things about words. I think homeless is the better word because it can so often be out of the person’s control. Unhoused does indeed sound like a temporary situation. A friend of mine stayed with me because she was unhoused for two weeks when she was between apartments. She was not homeless, though. Americans do like to come up with other phrases that describe societal ills in a way that removes blame (and sometimes responsibility). I hate “substance use disorder” more than any of the others. If I drink too much, say, it’s not a disorder — it’s a shitty habit I let myself fall into. Notice how there’s not a tobacco use disorder. “Smokers” are beyond all help, sympathy, or respect.

by Anonymousreply 22January 22, 2023 7:45 PM

Anyone that thinks ‘illegal alien’ is a better term than ‘undocumented’ in almost any category of analysis is just stupid beyond words ;) there’s no term for them hah.

Houseless also makes sense to me in that the person is without housing. A ‘home’ can mean many things and is a little vague when it gets down to it. Also lol if people weren’t so shitty and started using homeless as a a way to insult someone then there wouldn’t be a movement to change it. Something tells me that a Venn diagram of the commenters above complaining about it changing, and the people that use it to insult someone would be…..a circle.

by Anonymousreply 23January 22, 2023 7:48 PM

“Persons of the Hebrew faith” sounds so much better than “Jews.”

by Anonymousreply 24January 22, 2023 7:48 PM

[quote] I'm not an "illegal alien," I'm UNDOCUMENTED!

No, you’re just [italic]differently[/italic] documented.

by Anonymousreply 25January 22, 2023 7:48 PM

And in this country we [italic]celebrate[/italic] our differences.

by Anonymousreply 26January 22, 2023 7:49 PM

I’m not gay. I’m allergic to vagina.

by Anonymousreply 27January 22, 2023 8:06 PM

She didn’t die, she passed.

by Anonymousreply 28January 22, 2023 8:07 PM

Bigotry finds a way r23. People who want to make fun of the homeless will now make fun of the unhoused. There is no double-plus secret word change to make bigotry evaporate. I agree with r19. This is more about virtue signaling and being seen as a good person who "cares" than any actual attempt to solve any real problem.

by Anonymousreply 29January 22, 2023 8:19 PM

Lol… you don’t have excess weight… YOU’RE FAT!!!

by Anonymousreply 30January 22, 2023 8:23 PM

It’s a rich white liberal thing to make themselves feel better because being filthy rich and woke contradict each other. These people don’t know anyone outside of their bubbles. It’s like Latinx. Majority of Latinos have never even heard of the word. Only rich white liberals (and the minorities desperate to be white) use that word.

by Anonymousreply 31January 22, 2023 8:27 PM

R31

[quote]

Hello John Leguizamo

by Anonymousreply 32January 22, 2023 8:35 PM

I hate euphemistic speech

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 33January 22, 2023 8:36 PM

Because those “terrible things” are people.

by Anonymousreply 34January 22, 2023 8:38 PM

Home and house have slightly different connotations. Home is a warmer, more intimate term, one which implies family, belonging, etc. House is more neutral - really it's talking about a building, an architectural edifice of some sort. That is reflected in the Robert Frost poem:

“Home is the place where, when you have to go there, they have to take you in.”. And some of the same sentiment is reflected in the Dionne Warwick song " A House is not a Home:

"A chair is still a chair Even when there's no one sittin' there Ooh but a chair is not a house And a house is not a home When there's no one there To hold you tight"

I think many "homeless" people actually have a home in the Robert Frost sense, but for whatever reason, (drugs, alcohol, mental illness, crazy people in that "home", shame about unemployment or any of the above issues), they are unable or unwilling to go back there. "Unhoused" puts the issue squarely in an objective and neutral sphere. There is no permanent architectural edifice sheltering them from the elements and giving them a place of relative safety for their bodies and their belongings.

by Anonymousreply 35January 22, 2023 8:47 PM

"Homeless" is acceptable as long as it's part of the phrase "experiencing homelessness". That absolves the person of any responsibility or blame for their situation. It's something happening to them through no fault of their own. It's like saying I'm experiencing obesity. It's not my fault. Obesity just forced itself on me. There's nothing I can do about it.

by Anonymousreply 36January 22, 2023 9:00 PM

Dicking around with word changes is just part of avoiding any actual solutions r35. It's not some attempt to get to the heart of the problem. And I admit the problem is not easy. In addition to the mental illnesses, etc, you talk about, the biggest problem is those Homeowners Associations and Neighborhood Associations that simply DON'T want these people around, no matter what else they say, and not without reason. The homeless are fucking annoying, but it remains cruel to just leave them on the streets. The mayor of Los Angeles has set herself a big goal of dealing with this crisis. I hope she can. I'm not sure she can, but damn, if she can make a significant dent in the problem, that will be the best thing a mayor has done in a very long time. If a year from now the big announcement is I CHANGED THE VOCABULARY, well, fuck that noise.

by Anonymousreply 37January 22, 2023 9:08 PM

Not a "cleaning lady", but an "interior sanity manager".

by Anonymousreply 38January 22, 2023 9:15 PM

I'm not naked ... I'm UNPANTSED!

by Anonymousreply 39January 22, 2023 9:22 PM

He's a drunk!

Now...

He has an alcohol use disorder!

by Anonymousreply 40January 22, 2023 9:38 PM

*hic*

by Anonymousreply 41January 22, 2023 9:41 PM

“Food challenged” OY!

by Anonymousreply 42January 22, 2023 10:02 PM

I’m not a cheapskate. I’m price conscious.

by Anonymousreply 43January 22, 2023 10:35 PM

[quote]R37: Dicking around with word changes is just part of avoiding any actual solutions.

Except that it's always the same side showing consideration through softer language that also seeks to implement solutions and actually carries them out. The right never do this, and are as contemptuous of any efforts to do so as they are of kinder language.

The cruelty is always the point.

by Anonymousreply 44January 23, 2023 2:00 AM

New York TV and Radio reporters can no longer refer to city housing as "Projects." Tenants were "offended" by the term. We now hear "Apartment Complex."

by Anonymousreply 45January 23, 2023 2:28 AM

R1 it isn’t the left, it’s neoliberals, who are the lefts number one enemy

by Anonymousreply 46January 23, 2023 2:30 AM

Lesbyterian is more refined than Dyke.

by Anonymousreply 47January 23, 2023 2:30 AM

Most American's have no idea what Socialist means, they just think you mean Communist.

It's a head scratching moment for the rest of the world.

by Anonymousreply 48January 23, 2023 2:55 AM

"They aren’t “homeless.” They are “unhoused.” Do we really believe that homelessness will somehow be less awful if we make the word sound less harsh?"

I refuse to say unhoused. Refuse. That is like slapping a bandaid on a severed artery.

by Anonymousreply 49January 23, 2023 9:02 AM

Home is where the heart is.

A mentally ill mind might feel that their heart is content with a tent in a public park in Portland. Thus, they have a home. They aren’t homeless. They’re unhoused.

by Anonymousreply 50January 23, 2023 9:41 AM

R10, apartments are housing units.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 51January 23, 2023 9:44 AM

It’s no longer “committed suicide” it’s now “died by suicide”.

by Anonymousreply 52January 23, 2023 10:14 AM

[quote] Most American's have no idea what Socialist means, they just think you mean Communist.

True Socialism leads to Communism. Marx, himself, stated this.

by Anonymousreply 53January 23, 2023 10:15 AM

[quote] it isn’t the left, it’s neoliberals

You don’t even know what a Neoliberal is. The far-left Maoists now call everything they don’t like “Neoliberal”. They’re brain dead.

by Anonymousreply 54January 23, 2023 10:16 AM

Latinx has the be the dumbest liberal creation in history.

by Anonymousreply 55January 23, 2023 10:17 AM

"Fatally massaged with bullets"...

by Anonymousreply 56January 23, 2023 10:20 AM

R55, Latine would’ve been more palatable.

by Anonymousreply 57January 23, 2023 10:30 AM

I’m not fat, I’m calorically challenged.

by Anonymousreply 58January 23, 2023 10:31 AM

Big as a house R58. Wire your jaw shut.

by Anonymousreply 59January 23, 2023 10:35 AM

Okay, I know this is completely the opposite of what this thread is about; but, Americans also have a way of catastrophizing things as well.

Something as innocuous as circumcision suddenly started being called "mutilation."

by Anonymousreply 60January 23, 2023 12:09 PM

OP- Like Severe Economic Downturn for a Depression and Food Insecurity for Hunger.

by Anonymousreply 61January 23, 2023 1:17 PM

RightWingerLounge

by Anonymousreply 62January 23, 2023 1:34 PM

what r62 said.

The posters on this thread are the same truth-avoiding crybaby snowflakes that don't want the USA to teach its history and current effects of racial injustices and that we're all living on stolen land because the actual truth hurts their feelings, but, goddammit it! the word is homeless! I refuse to say "unhoused"!

It's all so farcical.

by Anonymousreply 63January 23, 2023 1:59 PM

[quote]We now hear "Apartment Complex."

Funny, I thought it was “housing development.”

by Anonymousreply 64January 23, 2023 2:49 PM

[quote] The right never do this,

Oh I disagree, they soften up harsh language a lot.

Why don’t they just call this a traitorous demagogue?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 65January 23, 2023 2:55 PM

[quote] RightWingerLounge

Please — it’s just one obsessive creep with a vpn and nowhere else to go.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 66January 23, 2023 2:57 PM

I'm not a jungle. I'm a rainforest.

I'm not a swamp. I'm a wetland.

I'm not a city dump. I'm a landfill.

I'm not a drug addict. I'm a person dealing with substance abuse.

I'm not shacking up. I'm a cohabitating couple.

I'm not a battered wife. I'm a victim of domestic violence.

I'm not a hyperactive little shit. I'm an energetic child.

by Anonymousreply 67January 23, 2023 3:20 PM

I'm not a troll mouthing GOP talking points as the country slides deeper into fascism, I'm a "liberal Democrat" on Datalounge.

by Anonymousreply 68January 23, 2023 4:23 PM

White woman with purple hair do this. Most Americans laugh at the crazies

by Anonymousreply 69January 23, 2023 4:27 PM

[quote] I'm not a jungle. I'm a rainforest.

[quote]I'm not a swamp. I'm a wetland.

[quote]I'm not a city dump. I'm a landfill.

Those things are all actually different, you idiot.

by Anonymousreply 70January 23, 2023 4:32 PM

R70 A jungle is a tropical forest, and may be classified as a rainforest at the right latitude. A swamp is by definition a wetland. A landfill is a dump with a nicer name and a few extra signs posted at the gate.

These things are not at all different. But they are examples of evolved language, particularly among the activist class. You never see anyone beseeching us to "Save the Jungle" or "Protect our Swamps against Sprawl." People artfully adjust their terminology to avoid negative associations and appeal to positive ones. Nobody would want to save a "swamp," even though ecologically speaking, a swamp is a form of wetland.

by Anonymousreply 71January 23, 2023 4:38 PM

You’re a simpleton, r71.

A rainforest for instance is a forest with a closed canopy and nearly continuous moisture.

A jungle is a tropical area of densely tangled vegetation at ground level.

They’re two completely different things.

by Anonymousreply 72January 23, 2023 4:49 PM

No r71 sorry.

by Anonymousreply 73January 23, 2023 4:50 PM

R72 Now you're on the trolley. Let's go dig up George Carlin and tear into him for starting the whole comparison.

The broader point - Carlin's, mine, and OP's - is that our culture has a reckless habit of over-applying euphemisms for the purposes of either maintaining emotional fragility or base emotional manipulation of others. We cloud our own language to avoid offending others, and to avoid using words we ourselves might find icky.

But keep on being a Know-it-All Maggie. Every elementary classroom needs one.

by Anonymousreply 74January 23, 2023 4:54 PM

In England a lawyer is a solicitor. Affirmative action is positive racism. Much better.

by Anonymousreply 75January 23, 2023 5:17 PM

The shift from “homeless” to “unhoused” isn’t just about making people feel better. It’s about promoting a failed policy agenda called “Housing First”.

Housing First policy boils down to this: The main cause of homelessness is a lack of affordable housing, and if we just provide a free apartment to every “unhoused” person —without any rules or preconditions attached — that will solve the problem.

The difficulty with “unhoused” and “Housing First” is that it is based on a pretense — a lie. We have a massive fentanyl and meth addiction epidemic playing out on our streets, along with a lot of untreated mental illness. Housing First ideologues want to pretend those problems are overblown, or in any case secondary to the main problem, which is an affordable housing shortage.

Meanwhile, residents of cities like LA (where I live) and SF can see the reality of rampant drug addiction, and drug dealing in our neighborhoods. We see the mentally ill roaming our streets, some of whom are aggressive and violent. We know that there are many “unhoused” people who decline shelter because they want to continue using drugs in a rules-free environment. Providing them with a free apartment isn’t the answer. Supporting their “right” to live on the street isn’t compassion. First and foremost they need shelter and mandatory treatment.

On a larger scale, “Housing First” is an effort to rewrite the rules of our economy using homeless people as pawns. It is pretense in the service of ideology, pure and simple. We don’t tolerate that from the far right and we shouldn’t tolerate it from the far left either. I am a progressive on social and economic policy but these people are making a mockery of progressivism. We can’t allow them to control the debate (or the language) any longer. Our cities are being destroyed, and people are dying.

by Anonymousreply 76January 23, 2023 5:44 PM

RepublicanLounge

by Anonymousreply 77January 23, 2023 6:04 PM

How about “roofless”?

by Anonymousreply 78January 23, 2023 6:23 PM

R57 it's a nice attempt but it kind of sounds too close to latrine. Idk why regular words like Latin, that already existed, were rejected.

by Anonymousreply 79January 23, 2023 6:40 PM

R76 yeah but that's not true. Everywhere they tried housing without strings attached, they found great success. Something like 90% of the people turned they're lives around when they weren't treated like infants. Those shelters aren't bad just because of rules either. I never knew how bad they were until I tried to people that had to use them. My goodness are they rotten to the people that need them.

Most are run by religious people that force them to participate. They get kicked out all day. Other people there steal their stuff, including medications. That's even with them locked up. If the person needs social services, they don't care, they demand they just go out applying for any jobs, when some justly qualify for social security disability. They can't bring their pets. There's 0 tolerance.

All I'm saying is that these were things I heard from regular people, that really were temporarily down on their luck (not addicts), and they couldn't stand it for less than a month, yet we expect homeless people to want to be in one longer than that?

by Anonymousreply 80January 23, 2023 6:47 PM

R60 Tatts are mutilations.

by Anonymousreply 81January 23, 2023 6:49 PM

Here's a link and that's just one areas out of many that have all had success. You might wonder why we don't see progress -- well, the cities drop the ball after awhile and let the problem grow again. That's what happened in Houston.

I see videos on TikTok and YouTube too, where private people help the homeless out. Most are decent people actually, just down on their luck, and the ones they can set up with housing always end up doing great. Seriously, when they share their stories there's a lot more to it than they're mentally ill losers that do drugs. They've gone through some shit.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 82January 23, 2023 6:53 PM

Sorry to derail. Back to the point; I don't think it matters if they are called unhoused it homeless. It's the least of their worries. At least we're not back in the earlier 1900s where they were called hobos or bums.

by Anonymousreply 83January 23, 2023 6:55 PM

I can’t believe how many people on this thread actually think my post is right wing. Jesus, I’m not saying “let’s all use the N word.” I’m making a point that we try to soften the language to avoid dealing with actual societal problems. That seems like a pretty liberal stance to me.

by Anonymousreply 84January 23, 2023 6:59 PM

Sure, Jan.

by Anonymousreply 85January 23, 2023 7:02 PM

Panhandler = beggar

by Anonymousreply 86January 23, 2023 7:03 PM

OP, your posting history reveals an obsession with trans people, so forgive us if we call you what you are: yet another right-wing troll on DL claiming to be "liberal" while posting exclusively conservative points of view.

by Anonymousreply 87January 23, 2023 7:05 PM

Fuck off OP. These nice words make things better. They don't improve things, address root causes, or facilitate change but they make the people respectable. And they can die unhoused or as a drug addicted sex worker with honor.

Scumbag.

by Anonymousreply 88January 23, 2023 7:05 PM

A sociological term for this is the "euphemism treadmill."

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 89January 23, 2023 7:42 PM

[quote]a drug addicted

You mean a pharmaceutical use disorder.

by Anonymousreply 90January 23, 2023 8:23 PM

[quote]90% of the people turned they're lives around

Oh, dear!

by Anonymousreply 91January 23, 2023 8:24 PM

[quote]How about “roofless”?

See, now I take offense to that. Not all of us have that fancy dental insurance. Some of us—oh, I’m sorry, I thought you said toofless.

by Anonymousreply 92January 23, 2023 8:27 PM

[quote] Have you given a single moment's thought for how such terms are regarded as pejoratives, and how they make the persons who are called by these epithets feel?

How is "homeless" a pejorative word? Maybe it's been used pejoratively through the years but it's no harsher than unhoused which could also be used as an insult.

by Anonymousreply 93January 23, 2023 8:31 PM

The thinking behind "unhoused" vs. "homeless" is that it is more accurate, not less pejorative. Someone who lives in a makeshift structure like a box or a tent could be said to have a home but not a house.

Unclench. Everything isn't a grand conspiracy to make you look bad. Social change is good and language is always evolving. It isn't all a Marxist plot to take away "freedom of speech." No one is being penalized for saying "homeless." Stop giving conservatives power.

by Anonymousreply 94January 23, 2023 8:39 PM

Stupid ass nonbinaries have hijacked the word they and have made numerous NYT articles unreadable.

by Anonymousreply 95January 23, 2023 10:11 PM

Bitch I don't steal. I provide my own charity.

by Anonymousreply 96January 23, 2023 10:12 PM

Another vote for what R62 said.

by Anonymousreply 97January 23, 2023 10:13 PM

I’m not a graffiti vandal, I’m an artiste!

by Anonymousreply 98January 23, 2023 10:52 PM

[quote] Everywhere they tried housing without strings attached, they found great success. Something like 90% of the people turned they're lives around when they weren't treated like infants.

Please provide even one example of a large city in the U.S. where Housing First has shown anywhere near that success rate. Or any success at all. You can’t because none exists. If anything, the data is showing that for every unit of permanent supportive housing we’ve built, the number of homeless have actually increased. (Please don’t bother coming back with “BuT LoOk aT FiNlAnD!!!1!” Because that will completely disqualify you from the discussion.)

Also, that UCSF study? LOL. Run by Margot Kushel, a Housing First zealot if ever there was one. And the results are totally irrelevant to real-world applications in a big city. The study tested a group that were enrolled in a program that serves a tiny number (150-200) people and has one social worker per 15 people max. It is completely pointless and meaningless study.

We need more shelters — better shelters, to be sure — with rules and with mandatory drug treatment programs, mental health services and other wraparound services. Permanent housing should be provided only AFTER the capacity to live on one’s own has been demonstrated. Until it is no longer an option to camp on the sidewalk and smoke meth and fetty all day and night with no consequences, nothing is going to change.

by Anonymousreply 99January 23, 2023 10:53 PM

We need SROs and inpatient psychiatric hospitals.

by Anonymousreply 100January 23, 2023 11:18 PM

We need affordable housing and living wages. The minimum wage needs to be raised, not to $15 but $20/hr. We need to end corporate welfare and raise taxes on the highest incomes, especially income not derived from labor.

by Anonymousreply 101January 23, 2023 11:55 PM

[quote]The minimum wage needs to be raised, not to $15 but $20/hr.

Let’s just raise it to an even $50. Then a loaf of bread will cost $25 because if you don’t think corporations aren’t going to pass that on to the consumer, you’re nuts.

by Anonymousreply 102January 24, 2023 1:18 AM

OP, you are a wee-wee chum bucket.

That's the nicer American term for "cunt."

by Anonymousreply 103January 24, 2023 1:21 AM

R16 “Unhorsed.” Oh dear.

by Anonymousreply 104January 24, 2023 1:59 AM

It's so pretentious and offers no problem solving, another thing young Millenials are infamous for. Offer some solutions, do not just complain. Also it completely is asinine. The term homeless has a negative connotation, not because it was created with malice or derogatory intent, because being homeless is fkin negative. Unhoused today, a hundred years from now SJWs will advocate to have them be called Nonstaionary cunts. You know the word cunt will be reclaimed and considered a positive. I kid but you get my drift.

by Anonymousreply 105January 24, 2023 2:23 AM

R104, Only cunts oh dear obvious typos or autotypes.

by Anonymousreply 106January 24, 2023 2:26 AM

For the record, I'm not gay - I'm 'hetero-challenged'.

by Anonymousreply 107January 24, 2023 2:39 AM

I’m just pussy-averse.

by Anonymousreply 108January 24, 2023 2:41 AM

Neurodivergent.

by Anonymousreply 109January 24, 2023 3:25 AM

Whore bag.

by Anonymousreply 110January 24, 2023 3:32 AM

This thread immediately reminded me of this hilarious scene from Buffy.

"I'm sorry, is that an offensive term? Should I say, 'undead American?'"

Classic. Apparently, PC culture has been around since the 90s. It's just gotten worse as time progressed.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 111January 24, 2023 3:44 AM

I don't pay much attention to the word police. I'm free to use any words I want. And you are free to hate me for it.

by Anonymousreply 112January 24, 2023 3:54 AM

Mass shootings? It's topical. In the interest of not triggering (intended) those most sensitive:

- repeat projectile occurrences?

- multiple bullet discharge events?

- high-speed bullet lobbing?

- Public boom-pop-bang event?

- Felling by pistoling en masse?

by Anonymousreply 113January 24, 2023 7:33 PM

Americans care more about their teeth than their weight. Speaks volumes.

by Anonymousreply 114January 24, 2023 7:47 PM

The reich wing does this constantly. It's so common and we're immune to it. It began with Reagan and Faux News.

Right to Work: Anti-Union, low wages, poor healthcare.

Pro-life: Pro-birth. The reich doesn't give damn once the baby is born.

Pro-life: Pro-white. White people will be the numeric minority, by 2040, in the U.S. This terrifies the reich. White women have more abortions than any other race. So, the reich wants to eliminate abortions, so more white babies are born. Read "The Birth Dearth", by Ben J. Wattenberg.

Socialism: The Reich presents this as a Communist Dictatorship. It's not. The United States has socialist institutions, such as Social Security, Medicare, public schools, road construction etc. Socialism is tax revenue used for the common good.

Low Taxes: It's never for the poor and middle class. They are taxed more and at a high rate. Low taxes are for rich people only.

No State Taxes: Horrible infrastructure; see Florida. States with no state taxes neglect the common good.

States Rights: The reich wants to ignore the "Big Bad Federal Government" to continue their state's racist policies, to ban abortion, and to discriminate against the LGBT communities. Yet, when a liberal state wants to ban AR-57 rifles, the reich screams about the Second Amendment. All the sudden, the "Big, Bad Federal Government" matters.

by Anonymousreply 115January 24, 2023 8:30 PM

I remember way back in the 80s when everyone substituted the word 'issue' for 'probelm' because it sounded 'nicer'.

'She's having a marital issue' for some reason sounded kinder than 'she's having a marital problem'.

by Anonymousreply 116January 24, 2023 8:40 PM

R115 Death Tax was another good one they came up with to get poor people to support laws that allow the super rich avoid inheritance taxes.

by Anonymousreply 117January 24, 2023 9:38 PM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!