"Autistic" is not an acceptable term to use in a derogatory way, and not fair to the TONS of people on the autism spectrum who work hard to fit in at a predominantly neurotypical workplace.
I don't know if you meant it in that way but your use of that word is very unsavory in this context, and I urge you to be a little more considerate in your use of that word when you finish your search and join a company.
"Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead."
I'm curious what kind of tools do you have for moderating HN?
Like do you have a tool that highlights threads that are racking up tons of posts/downvotes/etc. or something like that? Or is 80% of your day spent reading every thread posted?
I'll grant that focusing on it was not in the spirit of the HN guidelines. That's on me. However, GP's comment would have been just as unacceptable if it was distinguishing based on race, or gender, or LGBT status. I'm surprised and a bit disappointed that there's no explicit guidelines against derogatory uses of that kind of language.
Does "derogatory speech" count as "flamebait"?
> Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents.
Personally, I would say yes, derogatory speech is flamebait, because there will of course be those that criticise it and those that defend it as plain speaking - a classic flame war. It's also (certainly in this case) unrelated, tangential and clearly controversial.
There's also this bit:
> Be kind. ... Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
The clause about "including at the rest of the community" suggests that it also applies to those not in the community.
The discussion is effectively de-railed, the person's comment demeaned and substance distracted from, and here we all are, forced to discuss this topic whereas 100% likely that the person that used the term "autistic" is neither against autistic individuals, isn't going to discriminate against actual autistic individuals, and is a decent human being that hasn't hurt anyone. So what have we accomplished?
Anyway, what I've found is that people who speak out against "bad words" are quite toxic. It's obvious that autistic in this sense isn't the clinically diagnosed condition but in that of slang. If I say that you're like a pig, it doesn't mean that you go oink oink. And yet, educated people will take everything you say literally and turn into missionaries.
Reminds me of the time when the church destroyed pretty much every text on Greek philosophy simply because they said that the soul doesn't exist.
> educated people will take everything you say literally and turn into missionaries
On the other hand, "Autistic" can and is taken literally regularly. So it feels pretty disingenuous for you to expect "educated people" to determine and keep track of how YOU specifically use the phrase compared to all the other people in their lives.
And if one of the people reading/hearing what you say IS autistic, their experience of others using the phrase is probably not as light-hearted as yours. There are plenty of people out there who DO mean it literally. So it is entirely up to the person reading/hearing the comment to make that determination.
You want to blast people in a professional setting who can't string together sentences, go for it. But describing them in a way that CAN be taken literally will cause problems.
TL;DR: My suggestion is to stick to "bad words" that people can't be born with.
Just paraphrasing OP as you seemed to miss the points he raised.
I don't care.
Grow an skin.
People in my life who are on the spectrum, that I care about, care.
I'm not standing up for you so much as I'm standing up for them.
There are plenty of autistic people that do and don't have trouble communicating. Like there are plenty of neurotypical people who do and don't have trouble communicating.
Sure, the percentages are skewed very differently, but it's nowhere near all or nothing.