> Cancel culture at its best. Von Braun was a Nazi. Haber was a Nazi-sympathizer (putting himself in a difficult spot, since he was Jewish) and an horrible pers

> Cancel culture at its best. Von Braun was a Nazi. Haber was a Nazi-sympathizer (putting himself in a difficult spot, since he was Jewish) and an horrible person in general. And? Not sure if you read the linked science article, but there is plenty of evidence that Asperger did some terrible stuff. Not surprising, given the interest in eugenics that was wide-spread at the time, but still terrible enough that yeah, we should probably stop naming things after him. Parenthetically, if you are interested in making an argument where other people presume good faith on your behalf, avoid the term "cancel culture". Like "virtue signaling" it is a turn of phrase that strongly correlates with bad faith argumentation. Instead of arguing around the point, go straight for it - don't say "cancel culture is bad therefore we cannot ever question the actions of people who did questionable stuff", instead face the actions directly and say "Yes. Asperger sent kids to be killed because he didn't want their parents to spend time caring for humans he saw as a drain on society, but he did all this other great stuff trying to highlight how 'autistic psychopaths' (his words) would strengthen German society, so we clearly should continue respecting him". Or whatever it is you respect about Hans, you should be able to say, "Despite all the heinous stuff he did, I respect him because of XYZ". Personally, I am all for canceling Asperger (op. cit). When you just complain about "cancel culture" and don't address the core issue, it is intellectually lazy. As to the central thesis here- I'm sure that there are different between neurotypical and autistic people. I'm even sure that those differences cluster. That's not the point of the linked article (or its sole source, which others have pointed out is also unsourced) and it is bad faith to argue otherwise. The linked article claims single causes for most of the claimed observations, almost always rooted in a supposed (and incorrect) universal lack of empathy. Some autistic people behave in a way that implies a lack of empathy, but (a) not all and (b) that only means neurotypicals think they lack empathy, whether or not they do is another thing entirely. Presenting an unsourced laundry list encourages people to presume that all autistic people are alike, and that the phenomenon is well-understood. It is reductive, and no more useful that any other "scientific" stereotype about race or gender (or zodiac sign for that matter). On "aspie", I've seen the word used as a dismissive insult too often to consider it a label I'd appreciate applied to me. But that is kind of why I hedged it. If you want to call yourself that, go for it. I mainly wanted to highlight that it is a fraught term and that it is not universally applicable.