they have been doing this along market street in san francisco for years
Decades
Doesn’t this violate the Geneva convention ?
How so?
It’s a joke. The implication is that the repeated playing of Baby Shark could be considered torture, other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment and punishment.
Homeless people aren’t POWs though, doesn’t it only apply to POWs?
yeah it’s completely legal to torture people so long as you don’t call them your prisoners
Removed by mod
Dude, I’m not saying this is a cool and good thing to do lol, fuck them for doing this, for real. It’s that the Geneva convention has to do with stuff relating to war and a lot of the things people say violate it often don’t. Like people will say that tear gas is a Geneva convention violation but it actually says tear gas is allowable for controlling prison riots.
I just wish people would point to actually relevant documents when criticizing people for their misdeeds if they’re bringing up documents. The truth is we shouldn’t need some document to criticize this action. It’s inherently disgusting. It distracts from the point when people bring up irrelevant things like the Geneva convention.
It’s just a joke you dingus. Don’t take everything so literally
Bullying now, very cool, very original. 😎👍
deleted by creator
Homeless people aren’t POWs
The War on Poverty has been waged relentlessly and mercilessly for decades
I’m not supporting the displacement of homeless people lol, I’m just saying we shouldn’t bring up the Geneva convention as if it’s relevant when talking about the displacement of homeless people.
This is an unnecessarily pedantic take over something that was obviously a joke.
Yeah, I’m so fucking sorry that I tried to explain myself so I don’t sound like an anti homeless conservative.
Fuck the people who work there, amirite?
Feel like that’s just the message of the “Baby Shark” song. A big “Fuck You” to anyone unlucky enough to hear it
You mean those who work in the emergency exit stairwells?
Yes, that is the basis of the economic system.
Ah that’s a joke… Ah hahaha. puts away rubber socks
Jokes on them, noise canceling headphones are cheaper than a house
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
The article said they play it in the emergency exit stairwells. Odds are you aren’t going to be in that emergency exit long enough to go insane.
Ugh how did this super old song become a thing… I swear people are getting dumber. I hated it when they sang it at summer camp, and I still hate it now.
Super old? 2016?
Prehistoric
I was forced to sing it in school in the 90s. Along with the Jamba The Hutt/McDonalds song.
This comment thread now feels uniquely American.
I have never heard those songs, in the 90s at school and scout camps in Australia we would sing Ging Gang Goolie, Alice the Camel, and Ain’t no Flies.
Also for some reason we would chant about how ugly and unlovable we are and resign ourselves to eating worms… Children’s songs are so unhinged.
This was an old camp song when I was a kid
Oh it’s much, much older.
Because small children absolutely adore it.
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.
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.
I think the idea is to put the responsibility for housing onto society/authority as opposed to the victim.
Doesn’t homeless imply its society’s fault too?
Perhaps to some people, but to me it does sound like a homeless person just happens to be without.
Whereas an unhoused person has been let down by whoever is responsible for ensuring people are housed.
I dont see how. If anything, its just a matter of time until you see houseless as being their fault. Because the baggage is something you (and society in general) is adding. Its not implicit in the word itself.
I’ve been using it a couple of years now and I’m not victim blaming yet.
But I guess “a matter of time” is pretty open ended.
I tell you what though, it’s a personal choice, so you keep saying homeless if you like.
My highschool did this with classical music to make us fuck off after school was over. Jokes on them in into that shit
Removed by mod
Lmao they thought you were being spicy🤣
Everyone likes at least some classical music, most people are far too cool to admit it though.
Growing up I absolutely did not like classical music. Turns out it was the recording (bad micing of the orchestra) and mastering (the old "super quiet, super quiet, super quiet, briefly louder, super quirt thing). For mastering you could claim you’re being true to the original performance (lots of dynamic range), but when you’re listening to a live performance that’s all you’re doing and there’s no background noise.
Turns out I do like classical music, I just really didn’t like the way it was recorded and mastered back when I would be exposed to it as a kid.
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.
I always feel an urge to sabotage those things when I see them, were only they not covered in literal cameras
IR LEDs + Disposable, thick framed novelty glasses
Clothes you can toss or donate
Ingress and Egress method about 1/2 mile away from target, different locations and methods for each.
Ability to sprint for 10 minutes
Above average situational awareness
Do not bring your phone
Don’t return to the area for 3 months
I mean yeah I reckon I could if I really wanted to but that’s a lot of effort to temporarily disrupt surveillance of a random walmart parking lot
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.
Great way to lose customers
Having said that, what’s up with the “unhoused” thing? It homeless. Are we now calling it differently because homeless is now all of the sudden insulting? How long until “unhoused” suddenly is a bad word?
Can we please just stop pushing changing words? Homeless is fine, you’re without a home. It sucks, people should support you, not shun you, but changing words is just virtue signalling that doesn’t do anything to make anything better for anyone
but changing words is just virtue signalling that doesn’t do anything to make anything better for anyone
… And if you are the type of neoliberal politician that wants to pretend they care about people while never actually doing anything to help anyone other than the megacorps when you get into power – Then this is literally all you’ll ever do for people. Linguistic fuckery. Making up new words for things. Fucking around with definitions. And you know that there will be an army of people who will defend this, and shoot down people who actually want to do something on grounds that they said the “wrong” words.
The argument for ‘unhoused’ is that it humanises the person – But it’s really pushing it.
Yeah, this… Stop haggling with words, actually do something to fix it
Spoiler: they won’t
Homeless what, exactly? Sorry, you’re gonna need to throw in the word “person” just to be clear.
I’ll asume y’all are stupid and privileged and not just cruel. Home can be a public shelter, it is about people. A house is a thing you rent or own.
Not everything is politics, virtue signaling or about you. We use different words because language changes, because society changes. That is why you don’t speak Anglo-Saxon anymore.
It’s about precision. The condition people are talking about is not having a house, regardless of whether they have a home. This is why unhoused is being used more often.
It’s not part of an agenda, it is not about you. Grow up.
It’s not precise. A shelter is just that: shelter, not a home. An apartment can be a home, but is not a house.
Of course! Relax. It’s more precise to be clear they’re talking about people unhoused.
Interesting case of military tatics in a civilian settings. First Decide is blasted at the Vatican embassy, then born in the USA is looped at Guantanamo Bay, now this
The article says the music is played to keep the emergency stairwells empty. If you haven’t lived around unhoused before, they can take up a lot of space with their belongings and can be pretty unresponsive.
Exactly the kind of thing you don’t want in an emergency stairwell.
Honestly if the owners of a building CAN’T keep the emergency stairwell clear then the building should be shut down for everyone for safety reasons.
Yeah, if this were a problem with teens they would likely threaten to trespass them.
Jokes on them. The homeless loitering are veterans that lost their hearing in the wars we’ve been fighting since 2001.
In Montreal?
40,000 Canadian troops were in the US war in Afghanistan from 2001-2014
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.
