2 ms·
Not the same thing. I was actually using the meaning of the word. (See 2.) [1]. Some people are fine with this usage of the word, some aren't. [1] http://www.d
by lispyals12 10y ago
Not the same thing. I was actually using the meaning of the word. (See 2.) [1]. Some people are fine with this usage of the word, some aren't.
[1] http://www.dictionary.com/browse/autistic?s=t http://www.dictionary.com/browse/autistic?s=t
- qwertyuiop924 10y agoOh. You know, I wouldn't be surprised of not many people knew about that...
- omginternets 10y agoYet another reason not to get offended by such things.
- qwertyuiop924 10y agoHe's got the right to say it, and I've got the right to feel offended. And since you ask, no, I didn't flag the comment. That was someone else.
- omginternets 10y ago> He's got the right to say it, and I've got the right to feel offended. Nobody's questioning that. The point is rather that being offended by such things is (IMHO) silly, especially given that it betrays a certain degree of ignorance. On some level, taking offense is a choice, and citing your right to do so is equivalent to doing something just because you can. More to the point, his word-choice does adequately illustrate his argument, even if you find it distasteful. Playing the role of the vocabulary police is more often than not a case of making a mountain out of a molehill.
- qwertyuiop924 10y agoI was unaware of the other definition, otherwise I wouldn't have voiced my distaste quite as harshly. I work with the facts I'm given. If I suspended judgement until I had all the facts, I'd never get anything done. And playing vocabulary police isn't a role I favor either. But if you're calling something autistic, even if you're technically correct, in a context like this, congratulations, you've annoyed me. And sometimes I choose to voice that annoyance. Not often, but every once in a while.