Are people under the impression that Zuckerberg _deliberately_ keeps his affect flat? That he's proud he has difficulty responding to social cues? That he likes having to think before responding to make sure he isn't unintentionally crossing a line?
Calling someone non-human because of neuroatypicality is just as cruel as making fun of anyone with any other condition, and it needs to stop.
I’ve been listening Quirkology (the audiobook version the book, not the YouTube channel, though both are by Richard Wiseman), and I suspect the distrust of Autism spectrum is because the outward displays — limited or no eye contact in particular, though it isn’t the only one — are what most people think indicates dishonesty.
Extra bonus irony: the behaviours don’t even really correlate with dishonesty, people just think they do.
But I completely disagree with your conclusion. The debate was much healthier with fewer limitations. The limits didn't make it more nuanced and interesting, quite the opposite. Instead of making a point, people just squabble over who offended whom. Unbelievably boring.
Since this is from Glenn Greenwald, here's an interview with him where the interviewer straight up calls him a "pinko faggot" and the thing is easily the best interview I saw this year.
https://niccolo.substack.com/p/the-kinshasa-interviews-glenn...
With some lines as:
> Zuckerberg in particular has minimal capacity to communicate the way human beings naturally do.
> For every question directed to him, he paused for several seconds, had his internal algorithms search for the relevant place in the metaphorical cassette inserted in a hidden box in his back, uttered the word “Congressman” or “Congresswoman,” stopped for several more seconds to search for the next applicable spot in the spine-cassette, and then proceeded unblinkingly to recite the words slowly transmitted into his neurons.
And so on. That's not critiquing his character. That's ad hominem at best and bullying behavior that you'd find in grade school at worst.
That's not what I'm criticizing. I'm criticizing the general acceptance of treating people with autism as though they're deficient as human beings.
Just a passing remark would have been bad enough, but he devotes a significant percent of his article to it even though it is not even tangentially related to his point. He clearly just enjoys mocking it so much.