Language matters but so does listening: ivory tower terms taking over social impact spaces (SBLTN Lab Notes 054)

Open captions at movie theaters, “unhoused” vs “homeless”, and free accessibility icons

IN THE MARGINS

“I’m doing what I can”

Monisha Bajaj, a dope Business Strategist, shared with me the story of Dukdukdiya the Hummingbird.

“It's a lovely reminder about the impact we can all have. According to the internet: this parable comes from the Quechan people of South America and the Haida of the North Pacific. Michael Nicoll Yahgulanaas retold the story in an illustrated book.”

---

ACCESSIBILITY

Washington Requires Open Captions In Movie Theaters

Open caption movie showings will be officially required by law in the state of Washington starting on January 1, 2026 (Senate Bill 5486 aka John Waldo Act).

All large movie theater chains operating five or more locations in Washington must follow this schedule for movies that are distributed with open captioning:

• In the first two weeks of a film’s release (with at least five scheduled showings at that location), theaters must provide at least two open caption screenings, including one during prime hours (Friday evening or anytime on the weekend).

• After the initial two weeks, theaters must provide at least one open caption showing per week during weekday evenings or weekends.

Smaller theaters (with four or fewer locations) must provide open caption screenings within eight days of a customer request, or they can choose to follow the same schedule as larger chains.

In addition, the law also makes it easier for moviegoers to plan their visit:

• Theaters must clearly label open captioned showtimes using the “OC” tag on their websites and ticketing platforms.

• Theaters are required to list contact information online so customers can easily request open caption showings.

• If two OC showings of the same film overlap, only one counts toward the weekly requirement (unless overlap is unavoidable).

• Theaters must maintain records of their compliance for at least one year.

What the heck are open captions? Glad you asked!

Open Captions: The viewer can not turn on/off captioning. These are said to be “burned” onto the video and are always visible.

Closed Captions: The viewer can turn on/off captioning.

(Bonus info if you want to read about subtitles vs captions)

What are the benefits of open captions in movie theaters? You’re on a roll!

1. Better user experience. Well, if you ever tried using an outdated captioning device at a theater, you may immediately celebrate having open ones. I talked about my experience with them but the TL;DR version is they are little handheld screens that most of the time are dirty, broke, stop working during the movie, or not even available.

2. Help more people. Having captions helps not only deaf and hard of hearing people but also elderly, multilingual people, kids and early readers, and anyone who simply missed what was said during those quiet whisper scenes or a director who decided mumbling was the character’s main personality trait.

3. Increased revenue and reduced costs. Better access means more people buying tickets. In 2021, U.S.-based AMC Theatres launched their open caption program due to high community demand. Additionally, there’s almost no cost to implement open captions because no new tech is required.

---

DIVERSITY & INCLUSION

Language: I’m Lost In the Sauce

(Welcome to this series but the name is a work-in-progress)

Since being in spaces of community organizing or social impact, I often see language changing - oftentimes with good intention to be more inclusive. However, sometimes it can have the reverse effect by creating more/new confusion, instead of clarity, or by increasing othering. What’s worse is when language, developed in academia or niche spaces, is then dictated down to the masses without space or grace for people to learn the terms or even decide if they want to use them. Ivory tower tenants telling people how to speak then cancelling them for not knowing terms or using them incorrectly when in fact it’s just that small bubble of people that even know this ~change~ has happened. I’ve seen cases where language is being changed to “help” or “include” members of a specific community but the members themselves haven’t even been asked for their input. Is this kind of language change true progress that centers the humanity of a person or just posturing for feel-good performance?

As a philosophy nerd, semantics, pragmatics, and diction matter to me. But so does trying to ensure people feel seen. So this series is about that struggle: when is language change helpful or harmful? Let’s kick it off….

“Unhoused vs homeless”

Supporters of saying “that person is unhoused” or “that person is experiencing homelessness” have the intent of not associating lack of shelter with the person’s identity. It’s more of a temporary situation than the core of who that person is. Those alternatives aim to destigmatize people that lack stable, permanent housing. Other suggestions have been “housing-deprived”, “unsheltered”, or “houseless” - intended to call attention to the systemic factors that contribute (such as lack of affordable housing) or situations such as refugee camps. While I respect the effort to reframe the narrative of homelessness from thinking of it as a result of a person’s character flaw to seeing it as a societal responsibility, does this language shift actually help in any meaningful long-term way?

People that think we should stick with “homeless” see the language change as simply virtue signaling and clouding up an already complex issue with abstract technicalities. Some supporters of using “homeless” say the language change is unnecessary and shifts the goal post of what’s considered derogatory. Others say it doesn’t actually “reframe” the issue in any meaningful way as it has little to no change on the emotional impact on people and their drive to find, or contribute to, solutions. They say “unhoused” is a useless term coming from a place of privilege, doesn’t actually create any positive change, and the focus should be on getting services to those in need instead of flopping about changing the words used to describe them.

I often see language wavering between person-first language and identity-first language (e.g. person with autism vs autistic person), sometimes with the answer being “well, there’s no universal consensus, it depends on what the person prefers”.

A few comments I’ve come across when discussing ‘active language’:

• “i will say that ive heard from multiple homeless people that they prefer the term homeless and that its mostly housed people who use the terms “unhoused, unsheltered” etc.”

• “I do research on homelessness and I think that homeless is a better word than unhoused because there are forms of homelessness and housing precarity where you could still be under a roof. If you have a place but you have to go to the food bank to pay rent - homeless. If you choose a spot that wasn't safe because you had no choice - homeless. If you live in a home that isn't safe because you have nowhere to go - homeless. So I think the word unhoused is actually wrong here.”

• [Commenter 1] “I've talked to other folks who have experienced homelessness (as I have) and unhoused is not the term we prefer. I get active language but homeless speaks to the fact that a person needs more than a place to sleep, i.e. a home”

  • [Original Poster] “thanks for sharing your perspective! However this is more of the anti-oppression context than it is a discussion of personal preferences because personal preferences should always supercede what the scholarship says!”

  • [Commenter 2] “thanks for speaking up! [poster] I feel that this is also an important comment because it's not just about preference but about what having a home means; one can be homeless and have shelter, ex. by living in their car or at a public shelter. (Part of) what's lacking is the stability and safety, and knowing that you will consistently have what you need in terms of a home. Disclaimer that I haven't experienced homelessness, please correct me if I'm wrong about your experience. I'm a geography student and took a course on housing recently, sharing what I read and learned.”

As I finished writing this, someone told me about the “the Euphemism treadmill” which I have yet to lookup 🤔 Feel free to drop a comment if you’re already familiar.

---

ART & DESIGN

The Accessibility Icon Collection

“Despite growing awareness about the importance of accessibility and inclusive design, there is still a stark lack of visual resources dedicated to this space. In addition, many icons commonly used to depict accessible locations and experiences are often homogenous or uphold negative stereotypes.”

The Noun Project* now has 25 free icons dedicated to accessibility and inclusion available for download and free for everyone to use as public domain. (To download the icons, create a free account and download each icon in PNG or SVG format. No subscription required.)

“From terms like “accessibility” and “curb-cut effect” to “mobility aid” and beyond, this collection of 25 icons celebrates accessibility and inclusive design. There are many different ways to represent these concepts and many additional terms that still need visual representation, which is why we hope this collection continues to grow and fill critical content gaps in iconography.” (Source)

*Created in partnership with Disability:IN (the leading nonprofit resource for business disability inclusion worldwide), the School of Visual Arts MFA Interaction Design Program, Jake Hytken (D.E.I. and accessibility consultant), and Canva. The final vectors were created by designer Elisabetta Calabritto.

.
.
.

Signing off from the Starship SBLTN,
Laneen (Pronouns: she/they)

---

HEARD IN THE HALLWAYS

“It's tempting and understandable to see fun as frivolous. Shouldn't you be doing something more important? [Mike Rucker, an organisational psychologist and behavioural scientist] challenges this view: he explains why you should treat pleasure as a priority and shows how to start making more space for it in your life. – Christian Jarrett, Editor, Psyche”

I recommend reading the full article "How to start having more fun" and peeping the book recommendations but here are the keypoints:

1. Know the benefits of fun. If you can find a way to integrate more fun into your life, you’ll not only boost your immune function and longevity, but you’ll also unlock your full potential, become more emotionally resilient and be better prepared to take on life’s challenges.

2. Examine your beliefs about fun. The first step to having more fun is to identify and challenge the limiting beliefs that might be holding you back from experiencing more fun – such as the idea that fun is frivolous or an unproductive use of time.

3. Practise activity bundling. If you feel ‘time poor’, an effective way to introduce more fun into your life is to pair routine tasks with things that would make them more enjoyable.

4. Spice things up with variety. Deliberately integrating new and novel experiences into your routine can keep life fresh and exciting.

5. Explore your options and commit to them. The more you explore and get curious about your preferences, the more likely you are to find activities and experiences that truly resonate with you – then use ‘precommitments’ and a ‘fun jar’ to keep your options fresh and make sure that they actually occur

6. Practise grateful reminiscing. Gratefully reminiscing about fond memories is like gratitude on steroids, and a great way to extend the value of the fun you’ve already had.

---

📖 Reading: “Use Anti-Goals to Stop Doing What You Hate” (article by Justin Welsh)

✔️ Random Fact: Boring, Oregon and Dull, Scotland have been sister cities since 2012. In 2017, they added Bland Shire, Australia to their “League of Extraordinary Communities.” (Source)

👀 Watching: Heavenly Typography? Not for Pope Francis (video)