Note that Dan acknowledged that the author might be being defensive.
I totally get that. Not to belabor the point, but I think the original author probably feels much the same about some of the other criticisms being shared on HN.
It's hard to engage with a whole work when there are particular highlights that hit you the wrong way. I'd like to hope that a shared understanding of what "call out" might mean will help everybody move past it to appreciate the rest of what you're trying to share.
> The impact however was the opposite, since it just seemed like an attempt to contradict my perceptions.
I'll take that on board; I'm still on my own personal journey of relating to people effectively.
Re: engaging with the whole work. The piece as a whole doesn’t contain anything I haven’t seen before in autistic advocacy. I agree with a bunch of it, although it’s hard to get a lot of people to understand the double empathy problem.
So, the parts that are going to be critiqued are the parts that have conceptual issues - e.g. the two cultures problem idea, which is not universally shared amongst autistic people.
The phrase "call out" isn't a universal dog whistle for bogey men to come drag you to the gulag for wrongthink. Your reaction to it has been exhausting.
Once again you are completely out of line with the site guidelines. There is a reason your comments are getting flagged. Please take a look at them. This isn’t twitter. HN has its own culture which you seem not to understand.