I appreciate that you're keeping us honest on ableism. There's clearly an element of capitalist ableism that informs the dynamics at play with the modern day lumpenproletariat and NEETs more specifically. But I think you should take a serious look at how Marx and Marxist academics after him analyze the lumpenproles. It's not that lumpenproles can't be trusted, or that they don't deserve the same liberation that all workers deserve. It's that the position that they occupy within capitalism holds back their political development as a class. If some of them, like the user I replied to, use their status to read up and educate themselves then they are just as capable as anyone else to contribute to the revolution. Hell, Marx had some lumpen qualities of his own. The point is that the prevailing social forces push lumpenproles into reaction, much like the petit bourgeoisie. Would you say that when Marx or Trotsky call the petty bourgeoisie reactionaries they're being ableist toward disabled landlords? Come on.