Just in case people do not fully grasp the amounts of "doo"s in this song:
Baby shark, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo.
Baby shark, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo.
Baby shark, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo.
Baby shark!
Mommy shark, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo.
Mommy shark, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo.
Mommy shark, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo.
Mommy shark!
Daddy shark, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo.
Daddy shark, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo.
Daddy shark, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo.
Daddy shark!
Grandma shark, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo.
Grandma shark, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo.
Grandma shark, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo.
Grandma shark!
Grandpa shark, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo.
Grandpa shark, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo.
Grandpa shark, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo.
Grandpa shark!
Let’s go hunt, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo.
Let’s go hunt, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo.
Let’s go hunt, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo.
Let’s go hunt!
Run away, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo.
Run away, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo.
Run away, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo.
Run away!
Safe at last, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo.
Safe at last, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo.
Safe at last, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo.
Safe at last!
It’s the end, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo.
It’s the end, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo.
It’s the end, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo.
It’s the end!
I love that song doo doo doo doo doo doo.
The last two verses on repeat are I think my new sound track to the end of times
homeless
What’s with the wording of this title? “Unhoused people” instead of “Homeless”/“Homeless people”
A home is an abstract thing, a house is a quantifiable object.
Also it kind of implies that society should provide a house for them.
It’s like the difference between calling someone wittless and uneducated.
One implies that’s just how the person is, the other implies a failing of society/family.
I like the word unhoused, it implies they should just be housed if they are homeless. Everyone should be housed, even if they don’t own a home
What about the people who work there? Are they trying to make them quit then become homeless and leave the mall too?
According to the article, it plays in the emergency exit stairwells, a place that if you’re using it you should be trying to leave as quickly as possible.
If I was escaping a fire, and the stairwell had baby shark playing, I’d walk back into the fire.
I really don’t want to die with Baby Shark being the last song I hear
No they are supposedly insane already.
Icecream van
This is from the city where it’s illegal to be homeless. One man even collected over $100,000 in fines for being homeless.
Yeah, that’ll help.
It’s not “being homeless” that is illegal, though. It’s drinking in public, begging or sleeping in the metro. And it sure is tough not staying in the metro during winter. There are some organisms that can provide shelter, but not enough for everyone, and it usually cost a couple dollars, which not everyone have everyday. And it’s a real problem on both sides, as the metro was not meant to become a shelter for the homeless, and people have been complaining more and more they feel unsafe there.
Here they made being homeless illegal so they can force people into shelters/mental help/rehab/etc.
Much better than letting them shoot up heroin in parks all day.
Which orgasms provide shelter?
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.” - Anatole France
La Maison du Père costs 1 dollar a night, and they’ll let you in if you explain that you can’t pay the $1.
Some just don’t like shelters. They don’t like the rules, other people, or fear getting their stuff taken.
Sure “being homeless” isn’t the crime itself but you’re being naive if you don’t think the laws make homelessness illegal. What are they supposed to do? Go find a piece of land no one has claim to and freeze to death?
And what are we supposed to do? Legalize all drugs and being drunk in public just to avoid having to fine them, and install beds everywhere in the Underground City (and in this post’s case, in emergency stairwells at the Complexe Desjardins) with no regard for their regular use? Sure, let’s work on proposing more accessible legal alternatives. Just take note that these laws weren’t created to punish the homeless, but to have a clean and safe public space - which have been degrading for some time now.
We could just house them. That seems to work.
Feel free to host one of them in your home.
That sound pretty much like the “If you’re poor, just buy a house” people.
I think you don’t know much about Montréal. There are solutions already in place to help homeless people who want to go out of the street, but the housing crisis is pretty new and it will take years to solve. It wasn’t so bad a few years ago.They would be less easy to exploit! And to whom would we feel superior? And what would be the punishment for not obeying our
lordsbosses?!
Man that sounded wild to me, so I dug around a bit and it’s fucking true. Although the amount is closer to $110,000 it’s still insane.
Hey, we heard you can’t afford a house, so we’re charging you fines in the amount of what it would have cost to buy a house…we’re so cool! We solved homelessness! Because now if you want to be homeless, it actually costs more to NOT buy a house. So you may as well just buy a house!
We did it guys! We ended the concept of homelessness! High five!
I mean why don’t the homeless just buy a house? Are they stupid?
Have they tried just being rich and buying their own building to sleep in front of?
Maybe it’s their broke mentality that’s the issue bro stay on the grind 🔥 💯
Something something bootstraps and avocado toast?
we’re charging you fines in the amount of what it would have cost to buy a house
Oh how I wish I could buy a house for that kind of money. You should go look at what housing costs in Canadian cities.
If you can produce $110k in fines you can probably also pull off a downpayment and at least a few years of payments. If you can’t buy a house that’s still several years of renting.
$169k https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/27687505/158-douglas-avenue-fredericton
Although the being sold “AS IS, WHERE IS” is a bit concerning. Flood risk maybe?
Yeah, it was from awhile ago. I couldn’t remember if it was one or two hundred thousand. I’ve corrected my comment to be more accurate. Here’s an article on it.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montreal-homeless-man-100k-fines-1.3473707
Aaaah, I love living in a capitalist hellscape
What happens if the man does not pay? Will they put him in jail?
Canada does not have debtor’s jail. Nothing will really happen except that more fines will keep racking up. No collection agency is going to take on a homeless person’s debt, so eventually those debts will just disappear, assuming he makes no effort to pay them off.
In the meantime, if he tries to escape homelessness, it’s a lot harder nowadays to find an apartment with a landlord that doesn’t check your credit, and 100k+ in unpaid debts looks really bad.
In the ultimate act of irony… Maybe they’ll put him in a house.
Unhoused? Has homeless as a word been banned?
There’s also the difference in how the word is used more as an adjective than a noun. In the same way calling someone a disabled is a lot more dehumanizing than saying they are a person with a disability.
I think the idea is to put the responsibility for housing onto society/authority as opposed to the victim.
Not sure about Canada, but in the US:
Homeless = no permanent residence, which also includes couch surfing, parents and children who just fled an abusive family member and are temporarily ltaying with friends or relatives, and people who are living in their car. All people without a home.
Unhoused = homeless people that don’t have a roof over their heads. Might include living in a car.
They are synonyms. Please don’t make things up.
Edit: to all the knee-jerk downvoting. This is literally a quote from an article the user himself supplied as proof that there is a difference.
Unhoused is probably the most popular alternative to the word “homeless.” It’s undoubtedly the one I see most often recommended by advocates. But it doesn’t have a meaningful difference in connotation from the more common term, “homeless.”
It’s literally just a pc synonym of homeless.
They are not. I work with data collections on students and have had to explain the difference to people who don’t understand that a kid who is kicked out of their home and is staying with friends is homeless even if they are not out on the street for federal reporting.
Homelessness defined in law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/11302#
A more thorough explanation that contrasts the terms: https://invisiblepeople.tv/homeless-houseless-unhoused-or-unsheltered-which-term-is-right/
And what’s the definition of unhoused according to law? You aren’t wrong in what you just said but its missing the point, unhoused literally means the same thing. The goverment only uses the term homeless if I’m not mistaken.
Unhoused is probably the most popular alternative to the word “homeless.” It’s undoubtedly the one I see most often recommended by advocates. But it doesn’t have a meaningful difference in connotation from the more common term, “homeless.”
That’s a quote from the link you just gave.
And what’s the definition of unhoused according to law?
Amazingly enough, most words aren’t defined in law!
Do you think Cornell defining homeless but not unhoused might be a hint that they are synonyms?
Not to mention you brought up the legal definition of homeless without offering anything to compare it to and help your point. That is the sole reason I brought it up.
You gave me a definition of homelessness, which doesn’t counter what I said in the least and then gave me a article that sides with me (and then ignored it completely when I pointed it out) so I’m a bit puzzled.
But I guess sarcasm is easier then admitting you are wrong.
Do you think Cornell defining homeless but not unhoused might be a hint that they are synonyms?
That is quoted US statute, made available in an easy to access format through Cornell, not Cornell defining anything.
You gave me a definition of homelessness, which doesn’t counter what I said in the least
I gave you an article that discusses the terminology and how it is used for context that differing terminology is no inherently all different names for the same thing. It doesn’t define anything, it just makes it clear that there can be differing terminology that means different things and that the whole thing is a complicated topic. That is why I linked the article, not to prove definitions that don’t exist because the terminology varies in usage and consideration of importance.
But I guess sarcasm is easier then admitting you are wrong.
Any statement of how words are used will be wrong somewhere, except for things like the quoted law that is true in the context of written law in that country/region/whatever. There is always local or regional differences in usage.
So I am right about how we use it in our context to explain the concept of homelessness in the legal context even if some other people think it is a synonym, but thing other terminology has an important distinction. That is what I said, and if you can’t understand there isn’t a black and white defined terminology for all the variation then you aren’t getting my point.
Welcome to the euphemism treadmill
Language has power. You’ll notice successful effort on the right to get pundits to refer to Oil as Energy. Oil has negative implications, energy has positive. Homeless has negative implications for the person, unhoused has negative implications for the government.
In the US they mean different things, as homeless includes people living in other people’s homes. That can include people whose house just burnt down and are living with friends or family because they lost their permanent residence (home). Unhoused is about where they are staying.
People on the street are homeless and unhoused.
And you really think people use and understand these terms like that?
You may be correct in the academic sense, but completely wrong in all other senses.
Are you suggesting that the incorrect terms should be used to cater to those of you that don’t know there is a difference? Even if you were unaware that there is actually a difference, was the intent and meaning of the headline lost in confusion, or did you understand exactly what they meant?
The “correct” term is the one the target audience understands to mean what is happening.
The “difference”, again, is academic. They are de facto used interchangeably. Did the author know the difference? No idea. Could anyone tell, which group the people in question belong to? Probably not.
So what exactly are you trying to achieve here?
So what did you think unhoused meant? Did any meaning get lost?
That’s the thing: You can’t know that.
We don’t know what was meant, we don’t know what happened.
So the autistic insistence on nitpicky details adds zero clarity to anything. It’s inherently unknowable.
He isn’t correct in an academic sense. They are synonyms. Unhoused is being used because homeless has negative connotation to it.
The gas station near me blasts very loud opera music at the area surrounding the building. I think it’s also to prevent kids from loitering as there is a school nearby as well as plenty of homeless.
Classy
Having been in areas where homeless people gather, they can be an unpleasant bunch, if not outright hostile. I get why things like that happen.
At least its music, though this does confirm that Baby Shark is something they’d have played at Gitmo if it’d been around 2 decades ago.
I have been to many places where things like these are everywhere:
Imagine this but diesel powered, a bit chonkier, and they just emit this high pitched scream (there are other versions called ‘mosquito alarms’), and has extremely bright, blue strobing lights that will induce seizures in anyone susceptible.
JFC, the cruelty really is the point…
Oh if baby shark had been around two decades ago…
They have one of those outside the Home Depot in DC playing classical music to pacify all the day laborers hanging around hoping to pick up work.
I honestly don’t know if this is better or worse than the ear murdering high pitched screeching they play in the stairwells at a mall in Ottawa
laughs in Deafness
So as a worker with a house, can I sue when I go insane from hearing that song over and over? Didn’t they do this in Guantánamo to torture and break people?
They only had death metal and industrial goth music back then. Nothing as terrible as Baby Shark existed at the time.
They used the Barney theme song as a torture device, it’s gotta be equally bad
