I would not ask someone on the Internet if they were autistic except in extremely rare instances. There's just so much connotation behind that, I have no idea h

I would not ask someone on the Internet if they were autistic except in extremely rare instances. There's just so much connotation behind that, I have no idea how I would ever approach it. What I will say is: I don't think that this is purely a problem that autistic people struggle with, I think that neurotypical people (and neurodiverse people who aren't autistic) fall into the same traps, so it makes more sense to me to attack the specific problem when you see it, rather than to try and identify a cause every time. I have had limited success in the past walking back arguments and trying to get at the root of what people actually disagree with, and sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't work, but generally I don't feel like I need to categorize someone to try it. It's often enough to say, "hold on a sec, are you upset with claim X or are you specifically upset about just claim Y?" And if that on its own won't work, then I doubt that saying someone is autistic would make it more likely to succeed. It is generally good practice to try really hard to stay on topic and to stay very specific when arguing with people. Step back from details occasionally and think about what you're actually claiming, and keep just going back to that. Avoid tangents as much as possible, avoid equating disagreements over details with disagreements over philosophy/broad claims. I will not claim to be good at this: quite the opposite, I struggle with it a lot and I regularly fall into petty arguments with people online that I regret later. But when I am conscious enough to think about it, it tends to make my conversations with people online (outside of rare bad-faith actors) happier and more respectful.