/lit/ - Literature

Skynet sent a Terminator to kill his mother before he was born. The Terminator ended up killing his father, who was sent back to protect the mother, but not before they fell in love and conceived.

tl;dr wouldn't you hate robots if one killed your dad?

>>4510721
Yea, but not technology en masse

>>4510723
Name me one technology that isn't a robot. I dare you. Cars is robots, phones is robots, even thermostats is robots.

>>4510736
my dick isn't a robot but I use it to smash

Nazi Germany

>>4510743
really, such a petty motivation?

>Technology is not equivalent to the essence of technology. When we are seeking the essence of "tree," we have to become aware that That which pervades every tree, as tree, is not itself
a tree that can be encountered among all the other trees.
What does this mean, /lit/?

>>4510748
platonic idea, treeness. that by virtue of which we identify trees as trees.

>>4510754
so... while trees can look many different ways, what makes them a tree is their fundamental attributes and the same goes for technology?

>>4510744

Fascism, Communism, and Nat Socialism are the result of the sort of technological thinking he despised. In these regimes people are reduced instruments to be controlled and mastered by the authorities with power. When people cease to be human it is easy to commit atrocities. It is not at all a petty concern.

>Agriculture is today a motorized food industry, in essence the same as the manufacture of corpses in gas chambers and extermination camps, the same as the blockade and starvation of countries, the same as the manufacture of atomic bombs

It's strange that he couldn't see through the Nazi rhetoric and decided to join the party.

>>4510742
Got me there. Is your dick a technology?

technology causes deracination; he sees it as a reason for the growing inauthenticity of human life in the modern world

Technology = objectification of the world.

Technology is the manifestation of the mistakes of metaphysics (i.e ontotheology and truth as the correctness of propositions rather than the unhiddenness of beings)

Technology has reduced the world to a measurable object (The Age of the World Picture)

Technology has inherited the faith we once gave to the gods, who have fled just like Being has fled.

There is no transcendental aspect to technology, we hope that it can deliver us from our condition but it won't. It is a stagnant 'progress,' that creates an illusion rather than letting us think.

Technology is utopian death and false liberation.

Look at technology. Only a small percentage of the world is even able to use technology, and of that group most use technology for convenience. We have more and more items to give us free time to do what? To fossilise.

Technology becomes an externalised, objectified representation of the world.

>>4510764
i think given his track record he saw very clearly what was going on, you just have to imagine his position in society. one of the most eminent philosophers in his country at the time, in a prestigious position. i think it likely he imagined he could have an impact or change the nazi party. outside of that, there's just overwhelming pressure to submit to the motion of the state. i imagine he would have had to give up his scholarly work and might have even been in personal danger if he expressed too much difference or dissent from national socialism. there is a lot on this very topic, i suggest reading some interviews with him on this topic

>>4510754
>>4510748
I was thinking more along the lines of Wittgenstein's family likeness and non-essentialist graduation between what is and what is not considered a tree.

>>4510681
thinking of buying "confusion". worth it?

>>4510736

Language

>>4511150

But young dasein, language is the house of being. It's only a technology under a technological interpretation thereof.

>>4511174
What if... What if mans authentic being is being a technologist. Heidegger doesn't fully turn down this possibility only that we ought to think hard and long about our being towards technology. I think his qualms was most about mass industrial technology.

>>4510794
are these your thouhgts

Why was the longest Heidegger thread deleted?

>>4511186
aye

>>4511190
I don't know it was just getting interesting after that guy who took the science side and knew what he was talking about showed up.

>>4511190
mods are pseudo-intellectual fedora atheists who got repeatedly called on their bs interest in philosophy and literature

AS USUAL

best start making some GoT and Catcher in the Rye threads.

Any of u guys red 1984 lol xD?

>>4511193
yeah he was actually really engaging, I would have loved to see the argument progress.

>>4511191
nice you got suggested reading
list of books, anything really
mainly fiction, actually shit related to what you talked about, things that illuminate our modernity, what makes our society sick, and its future direction, etc.

>>4510681
Lucid? Has he even been translated into german?

Hey is the dude I was discussing Moral Relativism here? we left off at Nichomachean ethics.

>>4511201
Pentti Linkola - Can Life Prevail
Julius Evola - Ride the Tiger / Men Among the Ruins
Martin Heidegger - Question Concerning Technology / Poetry Language Thought / Off the Beaten Path / The Essence of Truth :Plato's Allegory of the Cave and Thaetus
Lautremont - Les Chants de Maldoror


Fiction though I'm not sure. I've been reading fiction only in relation to my psychoanalysis work, whereas I've been looking at philosophy of modernity for a while. I suppose most Kafka, Borges, wait, Ill get back to you in a bit.

>>4511214

yes, make a new thread or something

>>4511267
we can discuss here.

>>4511267
My response was going to be that Aristotelian ethics is a kind of side point and it isn't really addressing the question because it's going into a whole new domain. This is just a very big tangent. You said that universalism of humans and specificity of humans isn't addressed by moral relativism or something. I was going to say that moral relativism was just that. It was the unity of the two and that's what makes it so hard to defeat. Everyone has their opinions, each individual person does, and groups of people have their own universal opinion. And this is essentially moral relativism. I would like you to address the problem of moral relativity given the tools of Aristotle, and I want to see if you can use them. You will say you can't, because its in a whole new domain, but then I will say you should find another way then.

It's all in his "On the Question concerning Technology" essay or something similar (I have a book with that plus lots of other things)

In any case to elaborate on it, simple traditional tasks such as gardening, painting, baking cookies etc are all very important and integral to human existence and Being itself, automation for example is "good" at first where it helps the poor farmer in his back breaking menial work but what happens when this goes out of hand and human beings rely on automation to do even the small tasks they should do ?

You should for the sake of experience being itself do at least some gardening, baking or similar, but this technological society will push shitty products that will allow humanity to avoid these tasks.

Next is the danger of enframing, where human beings thing they have control over technology and with technology over the environment, but Heidegger goes deep to gather the very essence of Technology (or originally "Techne") and he shows you that we do not in fact have control over it, because for humanity to "reveal" is the important thing.

Just read the god damn thing and his other works.

>>4511347
Sounds like Simulcrum and simulcra or some shit

If we don't enlighten our "fellow" STEM retards this is how society will look like.

God damn why is science so primitive and stuck in modernity, the scientific method is outdated garbage.

>>4511383
What's wrong with this Dasein?

>>4510766

Yeah I got cybernetic implants so I can activate my dick on command. It's also been enhanced with a synthetic polymer to be much harder, hence my ability to smash stuff with it. Technology is great!

OP why AREN'T you a technophobe?

>HEIDEGGER: Everything functions. That is exactly what is uncanny. Everything functions and the functioning drives us further and further to more functioning, and technology tears people away and uproots them from the earth more and more. I don’t know if you are scared; I was certainly scared when I recently saw the photographs of the earth taken from the moon. We don’t need an atom bomb at all; the uprooting of human beings is already taking place. We only have purely technological conditions left. It is no longer an earth on which human beings live today.

>I recently had a long conversation with René Char in Provence – as you know, the poet and Resistance fighter. Rocket bases are being built in Provence, and the country is being devastated in an incredible way. The poet, who certainly cannot be suspected of sentimentality or a glorification of the idyllic, said to me that the uprooting of human beings who is going on now is the end if thinking and poetry do not acquire nonviolent power once again.

>But where is it written that human beings’ place is here?

> HEIDEGGER: From our human experience and history, at least as far as I am informed, I know that everything essential and great has only emerged when human beings had a home and were rooted in a tradition. Today’s literature is, for instance, largely destructive.


STEMfags are destroying humanity and I can't do anything but post about it on /sci/

God help us all

>>4511402
This dasein uprooted itself with the trash of its automated produce and are now floating around in space in total meaninglessness with total alienation from the essence of humanity because every act is automated. It's being is totally superfluous. Trans-humanism should aim at assisting us in being, but not take our being away from us resulting in spiritual annihilation.

>>4510681
read some Hubert Dreyfus, he makes sense of some of it

What is in your opinion the least destructive electrical engineering field ? The one which can assist our beings ?

There is no simple technophobia dipshit. Stop thinking of technology as something merely present-at-hand. By doing that, you're already falling trap to the problem of enframing. That is the greater danger, enframing. Instead, think about the nature of technology in it's method of revealing. Heidegger is not completely lambasting enframing as a negative thing. It is merely a mode of revealing Being, though one that can have negative consequences.

Modern technology represents possibilities for new ways of understanding Being. Though it does so in a way that requires Dasein to reformulate it's approach towards technology. Did you forget the Holderlin in Question Concerning Technology? Enframing/modern technology is a danger from which new possibilities of understanding Being can arise.

One way of doing this is by looking back towards ancient conceptions of techne. Techne was not technology in the modern sense of enframing, but rather an act that carried with it a poesis, an understanding of revealing. It also understood that revealing, that truth was a process of giving. We can't simply return to this understanding of technology. We are historically thrust into a world that is beyond that. But we can turn towards things that are still imbued with poesis, namely art.

>>4511402
It's method of revealing Being, enframing, has the great potential to conceal other methods of revealing from us. By enframing, Heidegger means the way in which we look at the world around us as something distinctive from us, as something to be categorized and quantified. It ignores the fundamental nature of Dasein, of Being-in-the-world.

>>4511481
hmm, but I don't see how this is a problem.

>>4511309

I like this example. I forget where it appears originally, but it illustrates Aristotle's naturalistic account. It goes like this: Assume that we were, instead of humans, giant self-sufficient land crabs. Our ethical reality would be very different than it is now, would it not? We would have no reason not to engage in wanton violence toward each other, no reason to form cities and communities, etc. This indicates that there is something universal about human existence that guides our ethical thinking.

Naive accounts of moral relativism do not address the universality which underlies our moral reality, nor can one work to gain a greater understanding of moral reality under naive relativism because there is no measuring rod to compare differing ethical viewpoints. This is the fatal flaw and the reason to seek an alternative. If one cannot take a stand and say anything is good or bad we are left with an anarchic state of affairs in which anything goes. In a sense Aristotle is a relativist because he doesn't think a universal law can be applied to all cultures, but he also acknowledges that there is a measuring tool to compare them, though it is malleable so that it can fit the shape of specific cultures. Understanding humans as a particular type of animal with particular essential functions allows one to make the claim that some behaviors are better than others.

>>4511535
>I like this example. I forget where it appears originally, but it illustrates Aristotle's naturalistic account. It goes like this: Assume that we were, instead of humans, giant self-sufficient land crabs. Our ethical reality would be very different than it is now, would it not? We would have no reason not to engage in wanton violence toward each other, no reason to form cities and communities, etc. This indicates that there is something universal about human existence that guides our ethical thinking.
But this sounds just like moral relativism. You're basically taking the context of what kind of sentient being we are and applying it to our moral paradigm. So if we are x, then we won't care about x and will just care about x. This is what moral relativism is. It's not just between human cultures, it's between different life forms too.
> If one cannot take a stand and say anything is good or bad we are left with an anarchic state of affairs in which anything goes.
well yes, so it's practical to establish moral laws, but it isn't necessarily an objective (meaning it exists no matter what, w/o subjectivity) moral standard. It's merely a human construction, and I'm trying to defeat that relativism that is inherent in the universe and show you that moral laws can just be as objective as mathematical equations.

>>4511581
I'm saying moral relativism is very viable and I'm trying to perhaps destroy its argument with/or without you. I'm getting tired though, so I'm going to sleep. If this thread is still up, I will reply later. I will keep it on auto so even if the thread dies I will read your last comforting philosophical message.

>>4511581
>>4511584

There is a less significant difference in species, in a general non-technical sense, among different cultures of humans than there is between humans and our closest animal relative. Humans fit into a category which might be said to be essentially posses the same final cause and therefore the same ethical end. This end is dependent on what you would like to call objective reality. It is rooted in part in our biology and its emergent qualities such as logos and emotion. It is not constructed, but a natural outgrowth of human nature.

>>4511528
Because you are firmly in the cartesian mode of separating yourself as a subject from the world around you as object. Heidegger wants us to think of ourselves, Dasein, as beings truly in the world, rather than simply beings that happen to be in a world.

The former is what leads to raping and destroying the world around us because we have firmly situated ourselves as outside of it as a subject.

>>4511843
whoops. the latter does what i said (subject/object)

>>4510748
First, you need to read Plato.

Second, I will explain: Technology (I suppose he means in actuality; as it exists in the world through specific technological objects) is not the same as the essence (the essential characteristics that "define" Technology; i.e. the Platonic form). When we search for the essence (form) of Tree, we must keep in mind that the characteristics that define all trees are not "treeness" itself.

>lucid
Uhhh...Have you, like, ever read an Analytic in your entire life? He's hardly "lucid" - he's one of the kings of obscurity. At least he probably wasn't INTENTIONALLY obscure, which cannot be said of most contemporary Continentals. He just had a very inflated self-image, and believed that his CLEARLY superior thought could only be conveyed in a very particular vocabulary, and that the German vocabulary, even after having been qualified, was again CLEARLY insufficient. This is, I think, an absurd position, because although I will admit that his thought is "profound" to a certain extent, there's absolutely no reason to use such a frankly stupid vocabulary.

>systematic
To a fault. Again, there's no reason to use the vocabulary he develops, and indeed many of the IDEAS he uses the vocabulary to represent are, I think, superfluous - the way he explains things is often very obtuse, and he often brought in elements in his explanations that just added to the confusion.

>consistent
There're actually a few places in Being and Time in which I thought Division I and Division II contradicted eachother. I can't think of anything offhand, since they were fairly technical points, but I remember having the feeling that he had said something different on the matter at hand in the previous Division. This is somewhat excusable though, since Division II was evidently not really ready to be published when it was. As for his technophobia, I wouldn't worry about it. It's just one of those over-dramatic Continentalisms that he likes to play off of - kind of like the concept of "authenticity". It's not essential to his phenomenology, in my opinion.

It's right there nigs

>"Techne" is a term, etymologically derived from the Greek word τέχνη (Ancient Greek: [tékʰnɛː], Modern Greek: [ˈtexni] ( listen)), that is often translated as "craftsmanship", "craft", or "art".

Craftsmanship and art used to be "one" as in they both served the purpose of revealing.
Now Techne became "Technology" and it's use is to enframe and not reveal things.

Where it went wrong, I don't fucking know. Humans should live in harmony with the earth and not be fooled into a smooth functioning of things we THINK we have control over.

>>4511891
wow why you got to use all those words? all you needed to say is that you're into analytic philosophy and you're super buttfrustrated, we get it.

>>4511891
>moooom my teacher forced me to learn 10 whole neologisms, it makes my head achey achey

>>4510794
You are talking out of your arse. Agriculture is a form of technology. Heidi's beloved hammer and wooden shoes are forms of technology.

>>4511994
Yes but they are tools used to create (reveal). It's the robot that simulates (enframes) uniform creation for us, that's the main problem. A computer, an implant (augmentation) and a robot has a potential as a technology to go both ways, Heidi would say we should bet on the former. Atleast that's how I understand it.

>>4512031
Pls respond. Am I misreading him?

>>4512031
Yes, I think; there's an app for that limits the Bestand.

>>4512031
How would you use an automated system to reveal ?

>>4511921

You're a fucking idiot. It's not that I have a hard time KEEPING TRACK OF his vocabulary - I'm not the idiot you take me to be (but then again I can understand you have a hard time conceptualizing someone who isn't similar to yourself) - I'm saying that this vocabulary is UNNEEDED, and is just posturing on his part to make his thought seem more complex and grand than it really is. Indeed, this is the motivation for many elements of his style (or lack thereof). He makes explanation needlessly obtuse, not because he WANTS to, but because he's convinced that the obtuseness is a necessary evil to express something so profound.

>>4511918

I'm not super buttfrustrated - in fact, despite his many and great flaws, I think Heidegger's mission is on the overall a noble one - I'm just saying that OP's characterization of his writing is patently untrue. You just can't assert Heidegger is more clear than pretty much any Analytic.

>>4512125
By using it to create something or express something, today computers and shit can be used for that.

>>4510681
he sees technology as making humans conform to them, rather than vice versa

is the simple explanation if i remember correctly.

Basically he believes that whilst technology exists to solve a problem it in itself creates a new set of problems to be solved.
I haven't read Heidegger in a long time so i might be wrong

>>4512135
>just posturing on his part to make his thought seem more complex and grand than it really is.

This is a myth, he invents a new way of expression to distinguish it from other ideas and to force a new way of seeing which we know is the kind of learning that's most unpleasant. Especially to is who are used to just google explanations.

So just to be clear with the neologisms

Gestell (techne + poiesis+ episteme, a form of aletheia) = good
Herausforden = bad

correct ?

>>4512162
A practical example of this is to use the circuity to create "trance muisc" correct ?

But this trance music didn't come from being rooted in Volkisch tradition, would such a thing even be approved by Heidegger ?

>>4512135
Just read more slowly if you're having that much trouble. Christ.

>>4511891
>I can't think of anything offhand,

Then why bring it up?

>>4512186
Yes he would prefer the use of actual instruments to create music I'd bet. But that's a matter of taste and not Being. The thing is if you create a piece of musik poesis and revealing will happen as you experiment with sequences of synthetic sounds until you find a rhythm you find expressed something. Using your computer to listen to music without effort that others have made is what I understand of enframing. Now a case could be made as you don't have to master an instrument to make the specific sound you want in your sequence, but just have to click a mouse or touch a screen you can actually call this an enframing of the authentic act. It becomes kind of a grey zone to apply heideggeran thought to new technologies that escapes the confinements of the technology of his time. I have a book on this after I've finished reading heideggers letter on humanism.

>>4512177

But what I'm saying is that there's no reason to use this frankly unnatural vocabulary when one can simply qualify the terms one uses - i.e. "when I say x, I don't mean y, but rather only z". By modifying language in this way you can say anything you want, and there's no reason to make things more confused.

>>4512187

For fuck's sake, I EXPLICITLY stated that this has nothing to do with whether or not it's EASY to read - the vast majority of the time, I do end up understanding Heidegger, however obtuse his writing may be. My point is that it is OBJECTIVELY bad form, and it OBJECTIVELY muddles and confuses his thought. I PERSONALLY don't have that much trouble reading Heidegger, but his style is simply intellectually irresponsible, and as I said, just posturing.

>>4512230
Wait a minute, isn't enframing (Gestell) a form of revealing (Aletheia) and what you are speaking off is actually Herausforden, to challenge nature itself to expect something from it

>>4512242
That's where I'm confused as well. Isn't the main difference enframing just describes what already is there. Revealing is learning from the act of creation? I'm not sure.

>>4512235
>Making itself intelligible is suicide for philosophy
-Heidegger

Now go back to your anglo-saxon analytic "philosophy"(tinkering with formal logic is hardly philosophy) trash.

>>4512235
Jesus Christ you're annoying. You think your opinion on his writing is objective?

>>4512260
Revealing in relation to techne*

>>4512260
>enframing just describes what already is there.

Enframing reveals the real in a specific way, through gathering when in the mode of ordering.

>>4512274
But Gestell is therefor a good thing right ?
Sec, let me bust out an article

"Now, in its modality as revealing, the essence of technology is what Heidegger calls “enframing” [Ge-stell]. But, what is important is that the fundamental specificity of technology in Heidegger – a mode of revealing as enframing which pulls together techné, poiesis, and episteme – is nothing technological, it does not belong to the domain of the machine or the mechanical. Rather, “enframing” names the fundamental, ontological process of “revealing.” Hence, “to enframe“ refers to the process of an “opening up“ as a “gathering together of that setting-upon that sets-up man, [that] challenges him forth, to reveal [to himself] the real” "
(QT, 302)

"Enframing is not a tool or an apparatus, but (and this is the crucial point in Heidegger’s argument) the very condition of possibility for the truth of the real to be revealed, poetically, to man."

From this I gather that to Enframe is something we should aim for. HOWEVER

"“The revealing that rules throughout modern technology has the character of a setting-upon, in the sense of a challenging-forth. Such challenging happens in that the energy concealed in nature is unlocked, what is unlocked is transformed, what is transformed is stored up, what is stored up, in turn, distributed, and what is distributed is switched about ever anew. Unlocking, transforming, storing, distributing, and switching about are ways of revealing [that dominate the age of technological modernity]” (QT, 297-298)"

Here we see that there are actually 2 modes of enframing, the ideal old "good" one and the one which is in use now, the one which brings out Herausforden in regards to nature....

Fuck me this is kinda complicated now

>>4511891
The profound nature of his thought comes from a direct engaging with and shaping of language. You should read more concerning Heidegger's thoughts on language. "Language is the house of being."

>>4512281
Yes. Sorry. When you analyze you enframe, when you experiment you reveal? Better?

>>4511908
Heidegger's assessment of enframing is not that simple. Enframing is a method of revealing, but it is a method that can conceal to us other methods of revealing.

Again, pay attention to his analysis of Holderlin in The Question. Enframing is a great danger and yet it is in that danger that new methods of revealing Being can be sought. The crisis of enframing is a moment of opportunity and potentiality for Dasein.

>>4512305
Can you show me any concrete examples of modern technology that fit with the "good" mode of revealing (in a way of poesis).

>>4512320
Photoshop?

>>4512295
Fuck me too, I've used his word a bit wrong. Well it's good that I did it here so I can read more and I didn't pull that one off anywhere it really matters.

>>4512324
Could that possibly extend to the computer and electronic engineering that allows photoshop to run in the first place ?

>>4512348
It should I would love a heideggeran account of the computer of today.

>>4512324
Honestly for some reason I can Imagine Heidegger reading this then going on a rant on how much you are losing out because you don't actually use a physical brush and palette as your Zeug.

>>4512392
Maybe. He probably would. What would his objection be? That authenticity is rooted outside a screen? That I should prefer atoms over bits?

>>4512417

>>4512417
Too sleepy to really think now but prob various things, like digitilizing the physical and enframing it in a box or something which we can then command to directly get what we want at any time (a form of Herausforden) or something.

I mean, this is the dude that got scared that people went to the moon, how could he not be scared of a digital world.

>>4512440
>I mean, this is the dude that got scared that people went to the moon, how could he not be scared of a digital world.

Laughed/10

>>4512440
>scared

doubt it.

>>4511891
OP here, I think you are confusing taste and preference with objective facts. Most of the problems you have with Heidegger's style of writing, I have when I read (generalization) analytics. Their mathmatication of language, even when it i not a formal logic language, has me crying bloody tears. (Brandom, Sellars, Russel, Frege, some of the worst offenders). Eventually I get them, but I am simply more used to H.'s sort of style and thus I prefer it.

Say what you will about him, but I don't see how you can deny the consistenly systematic steps he takes to perform a rigorous existential analysis of Dasein.

Also OP, to anyone: thank you for a good thread. Some things have become clear, though I still cannot fully agree with Heidegger in his dismissal of mass technology - I can see why there would be reason for caution.

>>4511434
Not to be overly pedantic, but he was also being critical of deconstructionist literary trends as well.

But yes, I positively hate the fetishization of science that is going on right now. Global warming? Let's seed the oceans with iron?

Of course the winning quote is from Thoreau:
"Men have an indistinct notion that if they keep up this activity of joint stocks and spades all will at length ride somewhere, in next to no time, and for nothing; but though a crowd rushes to the depot and the conductor shouts "All aboard!" when the smoke has blown away and the vapor condensed it will be perceived that a few are riding, but the rest are run over-and it will be called, and will be, 'a melancholy accident.'"

>>4511451
Any field of EE has the potential for misuse; but I remember hearing my friend talking about making fractal antennae or something similar. It sounded pretty dank.

>>4513404
I cannot agree with you more. To be fair, they are writing in FOL, but I think most of the problems the analytics run into occur when they conflate FOL with ordinary language, which is self-referential and therefore "incomplete" (I don't know if this is technically correct, but you get the idea). Suppes is pretty good on this subject.

>>4513450
What is FOL? Google suggests Fart Out Loud - but, I'm guessing that's not it.

>>4513458
Haha, sorry about that (I'm taking logic this semester with a lazy ass professor). First-order logic.

>>4513473
And there are other "orders" of logic in well, but I tend to be of the opinion of Quine that they are "set theories in disguise."

>>4513476
*as

>>4513473
It isn't even about the use of formal logic (though that is indeed a big problem for me as well), 's just that the jargon and things that are taken for granted are completely different. This year I had an analytic course for the first time in years (on pragmatism), first class I was amazed that propositions, JTB, the threat of relativism, an dsuch things could still be issues.

>>4510681
What? Where did you get the idea that he's afraid of technology? He thinks it opens up new ways to exist and approach the world, and that this could be potentially good or bad, either further concealing the world or allowing unconcealment.

>>4512490
> I don’t know if you are scared; I was certainly scared when I recently saw the photographs of the earth taken from the moon.
Taken from the Spiegel interview

>>4513688

>>4513517
Most of modern technology is shit though and is actively concealing revealment by challenging the expectations of nature.

>>4511438

If they actually lifted and participated in community events they wouldn't have the problems they do. It really is their fault in this case, unlike actual poverty, which is systematic.