Hacker News Reader

Comment by Brian_K_White | Hacker News Reader

you say typical, which means you already recognize the exceptions are exceptions, which makes this into nothing more than an observation that exceptions exist, but exceptions exist in everything, and so it is an uninteresting no-op of an observation. You could say "except for the exceptions" about everything on every topic.

"2 plus 2 equals 4"

"... in base 10, with arabic numerals."

View on HN

2 + 2 = 4 in any base system 5 or higher, not just 10 Anyway I agree with your argument and am not trying to nullify it with this tangential correction

Are you telling me my statement was true except in some cases?

To add to the chain of tangential corrections, it is incorrect to state that you are correcting a mistake. What your parent said was in fact a true statement, you just generalized it a bit.

The Hacker News Parody Thread[0] has ruined your comment for me.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33680661

This is so silly because roughy 15% of people or 1 in 6 people is neurodivergent.

Or stated another way if you would feel squeamish about playing Russian Roulette then you’re making the same bet if you make judgments about someone you’re not sure is neurodivergent.

If we play this game at the margins every human in the US is female and there’s some exceptions.

Things there’s fewer of than neurodivergent people.

- people who are left handed

- the number of black americans

- people with blue eyes

- redheads

- people who live in California

It says attention not enjoy.

A neurodivergant having a hard time processing something, or not liking it, is never the less devoting attention to it.

And surely there are some percentage who actually are oblivious to it rather than merely handling it poorly. But they are not 1 in 6.

But swiss cheese arguments to support percieving things as attacks are both quite typical indeed.

That’s not what the title says. The title reminds neurodivergent people that, once again, go fuck yourself.

uh huh ok

or... it's already the default baseline that everything ever written about any chaotic system from humans to frogs to cells to the weather, is already understood to only ever be expressable in any other terms than percentages, averages, generalizations. All facts or observations are already only some percentage. especially for humans, especially for behavior, especially for behavior in humans. It's frankly ridiculous to mention, like any other truism.

You could add a ridiculous qualifier on practically every other word in any statement on any subject, and that doesn't make them go from false to true, it makes them go from useful to useless.

It says nothing of the sort. If "neurodivergent" people are going to imagine insults where there are none, that cannot be helped.

Wow. Do you feel the same way about feminism? Racism? Do you doubt the existence or severity of ADHD, ASD, etc?

In case there was any doubt on that last point, consider that each of those lower lifespan by about 30 years, have ~15X higher suicide rates, and are 1:2 are not able to work full time.

Insults are in the eye of the beholder. For a person with a disorder marked by issues with eye contact and understanding social nuances, imagining insults that aren’t there IS the disability’s effect.

If you comment on how much a black person enjoys watermelon and you do so objectively without malice, it’s still fair for that to be considered a big insult. Why? Because it has been used as a derogatory stereotype for many years.

If you want to understand the perspective of neurodivergents, look up the terms “allistic” and “ableism”.

It says only that eye contact commands attention, not that everyone likes it or has the same reaction or exhibits their reaction in the same way.

If someone does not like eye contact, that is still an example of attention.

When anybody hallucinates an insult where there was none, that is their own problem. You can't hold people accountable for offenses they never committed, for insults they never uttered, just because some crazy person hallucinates an offense.

When you walk into a situation that has an intergenerational history rife with 'hallucinations' you don't immediately start talking about pink elephants.

Stirring up a bad situation is not blameless behavior. It's the favorite realm of children, narcissists and saboteurs.

No, it's the same ableist nonsense that's been spewed since at least the Victorian era. If you're not making intense eye contact during difficult conversations you're not engaged, you're weak and undeserving of the respect you deny others.

There are way, way more people who are alike in this way than are blind or deaf. Because it's not visible it's a 'safe' form of discrimination.

HN's average audience is probably not neurotypical.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com