This perspective handwaves the fact that “Neanderthal” is a commonly used pejorative term precisely for someone who is/acts “unevolved” or “primitive.” The article does a good job of not saying autists socialize like Neanderthals, and the commenter you’re replying to is wrong for suggesting the article did (I frankly wonder whether they actually read the article).

That said, the concern of linking autism to ‘Neanderthalic’ traits is, for the reason I just explained, a legitimate one, and the concern should not be simply dismissed as being unintentional. I mean, do what I suspect they did and just read the headline- It puts autism and the commonly pejorative term Neanderthal causally together in the same sentence. That’s what a majority of people are taking from this just judging from the ratio.

In other words, this association would be stigmatic for an already stigmatized group. Perhaps there’s some less stigmatizing language we could find to express this. OTOH, there’s the risk of the euphemism treadmill effect. OTOOH, there’s such a thing as reclaiming language from stigmatism, as I like to do very intentionally with the commonly pejorative term “autist.”

IDK, language is complicated.

I am not a shitty person…

You don’t get to decide or declare your own reputation.

i am in perpetual awe of dear leader’s generosity and magnanimity

Not only is this ad hominem (calling a person “too stupid to look up the moderators” is not relevant to whether the research they did is valuable, the two are independent and you’re addressing (incorrectly perceived) personal characteristics rather than flaws in an argument) but also, friend, you’re telling on yourself. Spam is a legitimate concern in this and every online community. Nicole is a known spambot. You spammed your own community as a moderator. Apparently as a joke that most people seem to have gotten. Your response is basically [I’m the mod here, I can do whatever the fuck I want]. And no, you can’t. Contrary to what you might think, this isn’t your community. You are just currently (actually, looking at the mod list for this community that seems to be formerly) one of the people responsible for facilitating the dialogue this community is, in principle at least, trying to foster.

A joke is one thing, but coming out of the gate hot like this calling people “stupid insipid cows” because they reported nicole spam is… unempathetic and tends to suggest a power trip. In other words, “Be nice :)” applies to you, too.

if so facto, …

Ipso Facto

If the rules are “You gotta pay for the book” and they don’t pay for the book, they broke the rules, that’s what I consider cheating. I don’t necessarily agree with the rule, I disagree with cheating. This is, of course, relative, as truth and morality in general are.

“How are we supposed to win the race if we can’t cheat?!”

They said this about the rise of fission, electricity, steam power, computers. The extra production was either captured by capitalists, or simply didnt materialze. What’s different this time?

No, if you want to see that era of global prosperity, you need to address a lot of deep, fundamental issues that humanity has trouble even acknowledging let alone actually acting toward fixing. edit: Though, stopping fascism would be a necessary first step.

This, but for all media.

You assume a non-complicit legal system.

I don’t think what you describe is meaningful action either.

Do I understand that you agree the proposed “blackout” is symbolic, and that you wish there were something more meaningful being proposed; or are you defending the blackout as meaningful itself? Do you agree with the criticism of the blackout’s being symbolic, but want to go along with it despite its lack of meaning (or perhaps better stated, lack of effect)?

For my part, I’d be much more pleased with the idea of the blackout if I could be convinced that it would have useful results, and would generally be in favor of so-called “meaningful action.” This blackout wouldn’t effect me either way since I’ve already given up amazon and google stuff almost entirely except what I need for work. I just need to know what the meaningful next step would be.

It sounds like a call to avoid symbolic action and take meaningful action instead, to me.

deleted by creator

He’s out of line, but he’s right.

I’m gonna leave it here for tonight, SMCF. It’s been nice chatting.

Do you mean violent statements are not true statements? If a person says, “I’m gonna break your legs because you didn’t pay me,” is that statement untrue because it is violent? Or perhaps do you mean that violence and truth are independent of one another, that violence is a quality of actions and truth is a quality of statements, that they are not inclusive of each other in that way? Or should I take the surface-level interpretation and say that truth is not compatible with violence- that being violent negates truth in some way and being truthful prevents violence?

Does the truth matter to you? It matters to me.

That’s not.