Why "unhoused"?

One thing that the modern far left just loves to do is wordplay: Change the meaning of words, misuse words, use words in (deliberately) confusing ways, and of course and most prominently, ban words and replace them with other words or invented neologisms.

In many cases, while this wordplay is almost always completely idiotic, at least it makes some semblance of logic. Even if their arguments are wrong and idiotic, at least they can present the semblance of an argument or rationalization about why they are changing the meaning of a word, or banning it, or replacing it with a neologism. Sometimes these neologisms are outright dehumanizing and insulting, but at least there's some twisted logic behind them, some twisted rationalizations.

However, sometimes there just aren't. Sometimes they just invent neologisms with no rhyme, reason, explanations or rationalizations.

One that baffles me the most is something they have been using for a few years (and which, astonishingly, has actually gained some traction, even though it makes absolutely no sense): They have started saying "unhoused" rather than "homeless".

Why? That's the thing: I have absolutely no idea. And I have never heard any sort of explanation or rationalization.

I have never seen "homeless" as having some kind of negative connotation to it. "Homeless" is not derogatory, or denigrating, or being used as some kind of insult. It's just a very neutral word used to describe a person's personal situation.

Yet, for some strange reason somebody on the American far left decided one day that "homeless" is not appropriate, and invented the completely asinine neologism "unhoused", as if that was somehow a better alternative without the negative connotations.

And, of course, like always, the American left just obliged and started using it without question, just because they were told to, and no other reason.

Incredibly, and sadly, they have become so successful in its use that I have seen even some non-activist people starting to use it. No explanation why, either. They just do, because I suppose they have been fooled into believing it's the "politically correct" term now?

Of course, like all the other wordplay, it all boils down to power and control: When you control people's speech, you control society. You have yet another attack vector to demonize critics.