3 ms·

First of all, I firmly believe you're a sock puppet. Where is the "good explanation"? The first thing he did was demand qualifications of the poster. Exclaimi

by bena 1y ago

First of all, I firmly believe you're a sock puppet. Where is the "good explanation"? The first thing he did was demand qualifications of the poster. Exclaiming he's diagnosing something. He started aggressive. I then pointed out that his friend also made his self-diagnosis with the same qualifications. He then got all huffy and basically said "So you agree his story is rubbish", which is also rather aggressive. And all through this, he's been dismissive and condescending to people. And everyone else has been rather polite to him even with his attitude. And I don't think anyone is misunderstanding him. Everyone acknowledges his point that the poster is likely not a qualified professional. However, they are pointing out that neither is his friend. And I also pointed out, diagnosis or not, there's no excuse for being an asshole. Being autistic does not give you carte blanche to treat people like shit. So it's more like his refusal to understand everyone else's point. And likely why he's getting downvoted. But that shouldn't matter. So, you know, stay awesome, dude.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
> Where is the "good explanation"? It was in the comment four up from my first one in this thread. > No, he made a diagnosis - neither party appear to be in a position to do so. (They also gave other explanations elsewhere in the thread but that is what I was referring to because it is enough for a reader to understand the point and you actually replied to it.) Their point is that the other commenter should not have written "The dude isn't autistic" because that is a negative diagnosis rather than an agnostic statement. > So it's more like his refusal to understand everyone else's point. Others were failing to make substantive points against the commenter in question because their point was going misunderstood. It took a few back-and-forths to get to the actual point (in fairness, that's because of the vagueness in their initial comment) but that point is consistent with what they've written in this thread. > I firmly believe you're a sock puppet. Genuinely, I read this as feedback that I empathized well given that I'm not. But especially because I disagree with their point. (The presumption that the first commenter meant "The dude's not diagnosed" is very reasonable and obviates the other commenter's point, except as a general reminder to be more careful with phrasing, which their question wasn't.)
- awesome_dude 1y ago
  >> I firmly believe you're a sock puppet. > Genuinely, I read this as feedback that I empathized well given that I'm not. But especially because I disagree with their point. (The presumption that the first commenter meant "The dude's not diagnosed" is very reasonable and obviates the other commenter's point, except as a general reminder to be more careful with phrasing, which their question wasn't.) FTR I read your initial comment as being critical (but fair) of my posts. How the person you are talking to missed that and jumped to you being me is quite the jump.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
    > critical (but fair) Honestly, re-reading everything, I think that paragraph is too harsh. In particular, that presumption of their intended meaning is not reasonable. They clearly meant "the dude's not autistic", which you correctly called out as a diagnosis. I appreciate your thoughtfulness.
- bena 1y ago
  Saying “the guy isn’t autistic” isn’t a diagnosis. Mostly because he isn’t a doctor. So harping on people making diagnoses ignores the larger issue of the person using a self-diagnosis of autism to excuse his own shitty behavior.
  - awesome_dude 1y ago
    The poster claimed that a "friend" did so. Let me know if you ever discover if that friend really exists.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
    > Saying “the guy isn’t autistic” isn’t a diagnosis. Actually, this is how a diagnosis could be phrased by a particularly informal doctor. You mean to say it's not a valid diagnosis because he's not a doctor, which is rather the point. > ignores the larger issue Indeed, they wrote a comment in reply to what I can only assume is a pet peeve (I do hear and read a lot of careless negative assertions like that where they are not warranted; it's a worthy pet peeve) to bring up a smaller issue in the context of the bigger picture, while otherwise not addressing the other point. I think it's a reasonable assumption that they meant to do that. I guess to this point, didn't you notice me also doing that? I'm just commenting on the things I want to comment on. I haven't mentioned what I think of the friend in the story because I haven't seen a reason to. Everyone knows being entirely self-centered is shitty. But since I'm here, I guess I should comment on it. I wonder about that person and what their problems are. Why would they do something so anti-social? It's likely there's something else going on. Perhaps more to the point, it's unlikely there's nothing going on. Maybe it's actually autism. The idea that it's nothing and they're "simply terrible at accepting responsibility" is naive and, frankly, disrespectful. It's sad to me that nobody's wondering about OP's friend and everybody just takes OP's story at face value. I mean, if OP isn't qualified to diagnose but readers just roll with their diagnosis anyway, it's rather obviously unfair to the friend who has a similarly-qualified claim but is assumed by their former friend to be a scumbag.
pseudalopex 1y ago
> First of all, I firmly believe you're a sock puppet. Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.[1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

by bena 1y ago

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago

> Where is the "good explanation"? It was in the comment four up from my first one in this thread. > No, he made a diagnosis - neither party appear to be in a position to do so. (They also gave other explanations elsewhere in the thread but that is what I was referring to because it is enough for a reader to understand the point and you actually replied to it.) Their point is that the other commenter should not have written "The dude isn't autistic" because that is a negative diagnosis rather than an agnostic statement. > So it's more like his refusal to understand everyone else's point. Others were failing to make substantive points against the commenter in question because their point was going misunderstood. It took a few back-and-forths to get to the actual point (in fairness, that's because of the vagueness in their initial comment) but that point is consistent with what they've written in this thread. > I firmly believe you're a sock puppet. Genuinely, I read this as feedback that I empathized well given that I'm not. But especially because I disagree with their point. (The presumption that the first commenter meant "The dude's not diagnosed" is very reasonable and obviates the other commenter's point, except as a general reminder to be more careful with phrasing, which their question wasn't.)

awesome_dude 1y ago
>> I firmly believe you're a sock puppet. > Genuinely, I read this as feedback that I empathized well given that I'm not. But especially because I disagree with their point. (The presumption that the first commenter meant "The dude's not diagnosed" is very reasonable and obviates the other commenter's point, except as a general reminder to be more careful with phrasing, which their question wasn't.) FTR I read your initial comment as being critical (but fair) of my posts. How the person you are talking to missed that and jumped to you being me is quite the jump.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
  > critical (but fair) Honestly, re-reading everything, I think that paragraph is too harsh. In particular, that presumption of their intended meaning is not reasonable. They clearly meant "the dude's not autistic", which you correctly called out as a diagnosis. I appreciate your thoughtfulness.
bena 1y ago
Saying “the guy isn’t autistic” isn’t a diagnosis. Mostly because he isn’t a doctor. So harping on people making diagnoses ignores the larger issue of the person using a self-diagnosis of autism to excuse his own shitty behavior.
- awesome_dude 1y ago
  The poster claimed that a "friend" did so. Let me know if you ever discover if that friend really exists.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
  > Saying “the guy isn’t autistic” isn’t a diagnosis. Actually, this is how a diagnosis could be phrased by a particularly informal doctor. You mean to say it's not a valid diagnosis because he's not a doctor, which is rather the point. > ignores the larger issue Indeed, they wrote a comment in reply to what I can only assume is a pet peeve (I do hear and read a lot of careless negative assertions like that where they are not warranted; it's a worthy pet peeve) to bring up a smaller issue in the context of the bigger picture, while otherwise not addressing the other point. I think it's a reasonable assumption that they meant to do that. I guess to this point, didn't you notice me also doing that? I'm just commenting on the things I want to comment on. I haven't mentioned what I think of the friend in the story because I haven't seen a reason to. Everyone knows being entirely self-centered is shitty. But since I'm here, I guess I should comment on it. I wonder about that person and what their problems are. Why would they do something so anti-social? It's likely there's something else going on. Perhaps more to the point, it's unlikely there's nothing going on. Maybe it's actually autism. The idea that it's nothing and they're "simply terrible at accepting responsibility" is naive and, frankly, disrespectful. It's sad to me that nobody's wondering about OP's friend and everybody just takes OP's story at face value. I mean, if OP isn't qualified to diagnose but readers just roll with their diagnosis anyway, it's rather obviously unfair to the friend who has a similarly-qualified claim but is assumed by their former friend to be a scumbag.

pseudalopex 1y ago

> First of all, I firmly believe you're a sock puppet. Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.[1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html