[5mv2]

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.

[bloomingeek]

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!

[hitekker]

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.

[pieds]

PG recently wrote this:

> 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.

[yusina]

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.

[diggan]

> 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?

[marci]

- people living out of their car (homelessness)

- Vanlife (not homelessness)

- living in a tent out of necessity (homelessness)

- living in a tent for an experiment/fun/holidays (not homelessness)

[vehemenz]

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.

[metalforever]

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.