Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
from the in-conversation dept
This week, both our winners on the insightful side come in response to our post about the meteorologist who was fired for criticizing Elon Muk’s nazi salute. In first place, it’s Maura with a reaction to the whole ridiculous situation:
I hate that Elon Musk’s fans are using his autism diagnosis to excuse his behavior. I’m on the autism spectrum. Like Musk, I have autism 1 (formerly Asperger’s syndrome), and like Musk, I struggle with the non verbal, implicit communication primates use to learn complex social behavior. My issues are thus: autism or not, Musk is keenly aware of the political climate. There is no way he did not or could not understand that such a gesture would be extremely controversial. Second, plenty of smart autistic people have self stimulatory behaviors that can involve movements and gestures ( I point at things with my whole hand with my ring finger bent), and if Musk’s stimming truly looks like Nazi salutes (🙄), it’s on him to explain that or change the way it appears. Autism should definitely be a mitigating factor when it comes to consequences, but having autism isn’t an excuse to act like a jackass or to make people uncomfortable. The world needs to be accepting of autistic people, but autistic people (ESPECIALLY those of us w/o intellectual disabilities) also need to be good citizens, and understand that the rights to community life come with responsibilities to others… except if they’re billionaires, I guess.
In second place, it’s an anonymous correction:
it’s not a nazi salute
it’s 2 nazi salutes back to back.
For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we’ve got a pair of comments about the Sixth Circuit restoring Tennessee’s age verification law. First, an anonymous reaction to the court decision:
The argument the Sixth Circuit presents doesn’t even have anything to do with the Tennessee law (which just says to implement age verification if Any sort of ‘pornographic material’ is available, not just specific kinds of porn like the argument mentions). This is like if I wrote a law preventing the sale of cookies which got an injunction and then the the circuit rolls it back because one time someone put a razor blade in a cookie. What?
Also not surprised to see Kristof’s NYT article cited – I don’t know if there’s any one newspaper article that’s done as much damage to the open internet as it in recent years.
Next, it’s MrWilson with thoughts on the law itself:
The law is vaguely worded because it’s like a Personal Improvement Plan from an employer who is planning on firing you, but wants documentation first and so presents you with terms it doesn’t expect you to meet. The law is basically saying solve the issue either by shutting down access entirely or we’ll accuse you of failing to comply by whatever metrics we decide you’re not following. Conservatives have already admitted that age verification is a first step to banning porn.
Over on the funny side, our first place winner is Pixelation with a comment about Trump pardoning Ross Ulbricht despite his hardline rhetoric on drug dealers:
In other Trump news, it’s amazing that the Ukraine war is over. Trump ended it on day one, just like he kept crowing about. Truly amazing! Oh, wait…
In second place, it’s an anonymous reply to a tiresome comment full of false bravado:
Please continue to do a smashing job of convincing us that you’re really happy with your life because shit that doesn’t actually benefit you is happening. Post again, please. Just once more will definitely show us that you’re happy and healthy. Any minute now. No really. I’m really close to believing you.
For editor’s choice on the funny side, we start out with one more comment from MrWilson, this time in reply to another commenter on our post about DOGE, who asked “why would any U.S. citizen object to the federal government becoming more efficient and less wasteful of our precious tax dollars?”
Just curious: Why would any German citizen object to the government enlisting the aid of industrialists to rebuild the German economy circa 1933?
Finally, it’s an anonymous comment about one of our post headlines which mentioned “evil billionaires”:
seems a little redundant
That’s all for this week, folks!
Comments on “Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt”
This is going to be a long next four years.
At least, I hope it’s going to be four years.
Re:
Trump will only have power for the next four years. The GOP in general? That’s a different matter.
And no, I don’t believe Trump will try for a third term—or that Republicans will try to pull off a we-hope-this-holds-up-in-court plan to skirt around that term limit.
Re: Re:
as The Onion has previously pointed out, trump can make use of the oft-forgotten “No-One Will Stop Me” loophole to get around that whole “law” thing
Re: Re: Re:
Damn it all to hell, you’re right. 🤔
Re: Re: Re:
A law or limit not enforced is one that effectively doesn’t exist.
He’s been in office less than a week and he’s already testing that ‘loophole’ with his ‘EO’s allow you to override the constitution’ move, and now it’s just a matter of finding out just how much and how many of the politicians are willing to stand up to him.
Re: Re: Re:2
are you taking the onion serious
Re: Re: Re:3
Are you serious at all.
Re: Re: Re:4
No. No, they are not.
Re: Re: Re:5
no one is if people take the onion seriously
Re: Re: Re:5
I would argue the onion is serious. Just not literal.
Re: Re: Re:6
wasn’t it satire tho
Re: Re: Re:7
In a good world it would be, but unfortunately reality has become so stupid it’s exactly like the Onion nowadays
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
I would argue that the Onion is ableist toward autistic people (Michael Falk, I’m looking at you), but I bet a certain regular commenter will now accuse me of using the language of inclusivity to attack autistic people because they enjoy content that is the least bit right wing and doesn’t want me doing anything to stop its production, however futile that effort may prove to be.
Re: Re: Re:7
Now this is a new one. Mind explaining how that works?
ha ha, oh wow, this is wild
When I talk about people weaponizing the language of inclusivity, I’m referring to things like right-wing dipshits claiming everything is “woke” or (ostensibly) left-leaning assholes trying to stifle speech by going “you can’t say that because it’s offensive to [x]” when the speech in question is barely offensive to anyone. I’ve talked in the past about speech and what audience one wants to cultivate with it (mostly in relation to humor), so I’m well aware that certain kinds of speech can be offensive to a minority demographic (e.g., autistic people). I do my best to avoid that sort of speech, and when I’m told it’s offensive, I pivot away from that kind of speech as best I can. (To wit: When I was a kid, I used the R-word, but I grew out of that as I got older and learned that it was a slur.)
But in rare cases, I won’t pivot away from that language because I don’t intend to offend in that particular a manner. Calling someone “stupid” or an “idiot” isn’t me trying to slur them by inferring they’re the R-word—it’s me calling them “stupid” or an “idiot” in the modern colloquial usage of those words, in that the someone in question is generally “dumb” (a term which I’ve used on myself on many an occasion). I don’t like using those words because I’ve come to have a distaste for them, most of which is linked to my childhood and my own negative self-talk. But sometimes, I don’t have any other viable option for describing someone or something than one of those words because nothing else seems to fit. Policing my language to rob me of those terms because they might offend the intellectually disabled is like cutting off your nose to spite your face: Yes, I’m likely to use those words less, but the constant reminders and harassment over that language makes me less likely to sympathize with you and your cause. And yes, that is a bit of a larger problem with “leftists” in general—even I’ve likely done it a few times!—but here on Techdirt, you seem to be the only person (or one of a small handful of people) doing that shit regularly now. And you’re largely, if not entirely, aiming your ire at me because…I comment way more than I should? Maybe you think I’m way more important than I actually am or some shit, I’unno.
Point is: When you try to weaponize the language of inclusivity against someone who sincerely believes in the principle of inclusivity, you’re not making a new ally—you’re annoying someone who would otherwise be your ally if you weren’t such an overbearing asshole. If you’re going to keep up this “Stone is a hateful bastard who uses slurs” shit because I called someone an idiot, you might want to reconsider your course of action. My being a prolific commenter on this site doesn’t mean I’m worth your time or energy.
Re: Re: Re:8
The fact you immediately knew AC was talking about you indicates guilt on your part in regard to your attacks on people for the “offense” of defending minorities.
Now your attention has been successfully engaged, is there anything else you want to admit to? Voting for Trump, perhaps?
Re: Re: Re:9
Pattern recognition isn’t the same as a guilty conscience. Drawing that conclusion says more about you than about Stephen.
Except you’re referring to people (probably including you) who weaponize minorities (which is not defending them but rather using them, which itself is bigotry) and by bringing this claim, you’re still doing it.
This is absurdity. “I’ve accused you of something bad, so I’ll assume you do something completely different I also think is bad.”
By your logic, since I disagree with your weaponizing and patronizing of minorities, you probably talk at the movie theater and listen to the Starland Vocal Band.
Re: Re: Re:7
I would argue you’re prone to bring up non sequiturs all the time because you don’t have anything useful to contribute to the conversation. You are weaponizing the language of inclusivity. You are pretending that you’re able to represent anyone who you can be offended on behalf of. I am on the spectrum. You don’t get to pretend to represent me or be offended for me. You can find discussion online about Michael Falk sketches in which people on the spectrum have different perspectives on the topic and many are positive. You’re certainly free to have your own opinion, but you’re pretending you get to tell us how we’re supposed to feel. You don’t get to use as for your pet issues.
Re: Re: Re:8
You’re claiming to be autistic while showing evidence of allism (ascribing motives of your own to others and reading between the lines to receive messages that nobody sent), whereas I am actually autistic. Unlike you, I do seek to represent the small group of people with autism who (frequently) claim that autistic people with intellectual disabilities have no worth or value if they can’t contribute to society in any way. Rather, I represent only myself, but that doesn’t mean I’m incapable of knowing what members of the Autistic community have said about the Onion‘s representation of autism. But yeah, you carry on lying about being autistic to more effectively attack someone who actually is because at least you’re only making yourself look bad and not me.
Re: Re: Re:9
Holy fuck! This is gold. You’re literally going to “no true Scotsman” an autistic person because you think you’re qualified to diagnose someone based on a single comment online? Wow, talk about weaponizing people on the spectrum! Now that’s some chutzpah-filled gatekeeping!
First on this point, that’s not an attribute of autistic or allistic people, so it’s really weird that you’re pretending that’s a basis for your unprofessional diagnosis. Second, you’re ascribing your motives to all autistic people and I’m explicitly opposing that. You can’t just pretend that we’re all unified and agree with you. We’re individuals and you cannot ever possibly represent us. It’s narcissistic to think that you could.
I’m assuming you misstated this because it reads like you’re saying you agree autistic people have no worth or value.
But even giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you mean that you’re defending autistic people who others feel have no value, I still disagree with your statement and characterization.
First, autism isn’t an intellectual disability. It is considered a “disability” or a “disorder” by the medical community (though I personally disagree with those labels), but it’s neurological in nature, not intellectual. A lot of autistic people such as myself tested as having above average IQs in elementary and middle school and got put into GATE and TAG programs. When we applied ourselves, we were often overachievers intellectually and academically, except when the often co-diagnosed condition of ADHD got involved.
Second, it’s my experience that autistic people are often abused for the fact that they contribute too much to society in multiple ways by the very nature of our deep interest in particular topics. There’s a lot of discussion in autistic communities (TikTok, Reddit, et al.) in which we have discussed how we actually try to meet all the job requirements of positions we take while allistic people don’t seem to think they’re expected to complete everything.
Nope, you literally said otherwise a sentence before. “I do seek to represent the small group of people with autism”
It’s funny that you included that link because it’s an article by one single person which isn’t a representative number, but then the comments include dissent from people who claim to find it funny or who think it may be making fun of how neurotypical people perceive autistic people.
Apparently you searched for a single link to support your claim but didn’t actually deep dive on the topic to find all the other links to places where people on the spectrum discussed perspectives that differ from yours:
https://www.reddit.com/r/autism/comments/t4cjf9/ok_i_have_to_know_what_do_you_guys_think_of/?rdt=40053
https://www.reddit.com/r/aspiememes/comments/13emgnd/since_were_talking_about_poor_autistic/
https://www.reddit.com/r/aspergers/comments/mlrfrd/ive_just_discovered_the_onions_autistic_reporter/
I would never pretend to be able to diagnose someone as autistic or allistic based on a single comment. You’re the one making yourself look bad. In the same vein in which I said you don’t get to represent us without our express consent, you also don’t get to diagnose us. That you think you can is concerning. That you think others reading this thread will think you come out looking like a champion of the minority rather than an asshat trying to dictate to others how they’re allowed to experience their own reality is laughable.
Claiming to be autistic and then gatekeeping autism by lashing out at other people only makes us look bad. You should really take some time to be introspective. Attack your own issues as fiercely as you attack your misperception of others.
Re: Re: Re:10
Every accusation a confession from what I can see. Just an FYI.
Re: Re: Re:10
Nice proving you have no reading comprehension. AC said “autistic people with intellectual disabilities” when obviously referencing the small group of autistic people for whom intellectual disability is a co-occurring condition, so for you to twist that into them claiming all autistic people have intellectual disabilities shows you’re more anti-autism rights than you are pro-autism rights. Free lesson: autism rights are human rights. Please don’t forget that again now I’ve reminded you of it.
Here’s what you said in your first comment:
and
Thanks for proving you’re an ableist liar, though.
Re: Re: Re:11
No, that wasn’t obvious. Your assertion that it was is just your perspective. And since it wasn’t obvious, they are responsible if there is a misunderstanding.
They also said that they did seek to represent people claiming autistic people with intellectual disabilities were useless. So clearly they’re either awful or not the most articulate person.
First, we weren’t discussing autistic people who had a co-diagnosis of an intellectual disability, so that would be both a moving goal post and a non sequitur. I wasn’t discussing people with intellectual disabilities at all, so bringing it up was completely irrelevant. They also hadn’t mentioned them at all until the comment I responded to. Earlier they were just purporting to represent all people on the spectrum. So you should be criticizing them for lack of specificity if they originally intended on representing a much smaller group of people.
But even if we were going to change the subject and talk about autistic people who also have intellectual disabilities, the intellectual disabilities would be the distinguishing factor for that discussion, not autism.
It’s not a twist. I interpreted their words. And since you’re purporting to not be that AC yourself, you don’t have the authority to declare what they meant. Only they do. Ironically, you’re doing exactly what you’re accusing me of doing.
Even if I were twisting their words, this isn’t a conclusion you can actually draw. How much I am for or against “autism rights” doesn’t rest on whether I’ve correctly interpreted the words of one person making bad arguments. That’s an absurd claim.
I love that you’re pretending like you’re advocating for something that I oppose. This argument style where you claim “I disagree with you, therefore you must be opposed to things I purport to value,” is an absurd logical fallacy. You’re just shoving in logical fallacies everywhere like you’re trying to fill a bingo card.
You linked to a comment I didn’t make.
I’m not sure what you think this proves. I stand by the statement that the AC isn’t able to weaponize people on the spectrum to attack others, especially people who are also on the spectrum. But take that pigeon chess victory lap if you want, I guess.
Re: Re: Re:12
So if I say “Autistic people with epilepsy,” it’s not obvious I’m not implying all autistic have epilepsy? Nice admission to a lack of reading comprehension on your part.
Well, if pattern recognition is sufficient to link me to an AC who has a style different from mine, then it’s more than sufficient to link you to “another AC” with an identical style. TL;DR: You’re a MAGAt trying to crawl out from being called out on your ableist bullshit, and that remains true whether you have a position on the autism spectrum or not.
Re: Re: Re:13
Epilepsy isn’t a false association with autism. I’ve actually heard people refer to autism as an intellectual disability before and I very much oppose that characterization. “With” could be used when discussing what someone considers an attribute of autism as opposed to a distinct co-diagnosis. For instance, “autistic people with a strong sense of justice.” But you’re also ignoring all my other explanations – it was a non sequitur, it was goal post moving, it was something we weren’t discussing and completely irrelevant. Why would someone suddenly change what we’re talking about if they were trying to be clear?
Huh? I haven’t claimed you’re an AC, though you seem to be admitting you are now?
It makes so much more sense when you admit you think I’m someone else. The non sequiturs probably mean something to whomever you have a beef with. You seem to think when someone criticizes you that they must hold exactly opposite perspectives on everything. That’s a terrible assumption. You don’t seem to consider that a person on the spectrum who could be far more leftist than you might oppose your representation of us.
Re: Re: Re:14
So you either lack reading comprehension of your own comments or you’re happy to twist the words of others to your own ends, neither of which is a good look for you, FYI, since the first paints you as stupid and the second paints you as evil. So which is it?
Re: Re: Re:15
This is a weird dodge. I pointed out that you explicitly identified me as someone I am not and you’re trying to say I’m twisting your words or misunderstanding you? That’s a laugh.
By your logic, you must be an ableist for attacking a person on the spectrum and therefore you must be a MAGA supporting villain of the worst nature. You probably kick puppies too. See where your arguments go?
Re: Re: Re:13
You persistently contribute in dormant discussions within outdated comment sections on articles that are nearly a week old, often posting mere minutes after an AC voices the same opinion as you or defends stances similar to yours. You appear naive enough to assume nobody will recognize the close proximity of your posts relative to those made by ACs or notice how frequently both parties show up simultaneously within specific threads expressing similar viewpoints and targeting the same individuals. It seems you underestimate others’ observational capabilities. Repeatedly, you label dissenters as trolls while accusing them of being MAGA supporters simply because they challenge your flawed perspectives.
You’re not fooling anyone but yourself here.
Re: Re: Re:14
If it’s only nearly a week old, then it’s not outdated. Nice try at an attack though. Shame it’s way off target.
Oh? From what I can see, David posted a whole day after the previous comment both times. Would you like to post a link to back your assertion?
Yep, fair. Of course, a pro-autism rights stance isn’t unique to David, but is held by the whole Autistic community and its allies, so I’m puzzled at what you’re trying to prove with the above allegation.
Re: Re: Re:15
Nobody else is commenting on the article. It’s just comments on this particular thread. Everyone else moved on.
The post I responded to was within 7 minutes of another post with the same M.O.
David February 1, 2025 at 3:58 am
Anonymous Coward February 1, 2025 at 3:51 am
This isn’t about pro-autism rights because no one in the thread is attacking the rights of people on the spectrum despite the disingenuous claims. If David isn’t Walden and the ACs in the thread, then they’re coordinating. David’s incorrect accusation about my identity seems to indicate he participates in discussions elsewhere and might be brigading with compatriots, including you. Due to the anonymity of the comment system, you can’t prove that you aren’t David and I can’t prove you are, but it doesn’t matter. You’re shadowboxing with strawmen.
David has in the past attacked multiple people in the comments who are on the spectrum, so David is actually terrible at being an ally. Telling people on the spectrum they’re not on the spectrum simply because they disagree with a weaponized approach that makes people on the spectrum look petty and opportunistic isn’t a stance held by the whole autistic community and its allies. Pretending that you can speak for the entire autistic community just indicates you’re disingenuous and only care about attempting to win arguments even with terrible logic and claims that contradict your supposed values.
Re: Re: Re:16
As I’ve previously stated, a pro-autism rights stance isn’t unique to any individual. You would do better to follow Douglas Hubbard’s corollary to Hanlon’s Razor:
Re: Re: Re:12
Yeah, they must be an awful person because communication needs don’t exist in autism if the person seems to be able to speak/write well, amirite? /s Your ableism has been noted.
Re: Re: Re:12
The fact you can interpret others’ words to say something that nobody else would read that way indicates insincerity on your part, so why should anyone believe your claim of being autistic? There are level 1 autistic children part-time in my daughter’s class at school, and they would never act as you have.
Re: Re: Re:13
You aren’t anyone else but yourself. You can’t actually say no one else would read it that way. You’re purporting to represent the entirety of all English-reading people in the world. That’s fundamentally absurd.
Even if I were literally the only person to interpret the statement that way, it would be a misunderstanding, not evidence of insincerity. That you’re so quick to assert without adequate knowledge that someone you don’t know is being insincere is really alarming. You exhibit a number of cognitive biases. You’ve got false consensus effect where you think people agree with you. You have illusion of asymmetric insight where you think you’re observant of the truths about others but think people can’t see through your bullshit. Illusion of validity. You’re basically just a big jumble of them. It’s sad, funny, and intriguing all at the same time.
You seem to assume A) that a possible (though not yet proven) misunderstanding was intentional B) that being mistaken would indicate insincerity C) that insincerity in one particular instance means all other statements are completely untrue D) that people on the spectrum are incapable of being insincere or being mistaken. But honestly, it doesn’t matter if you (not anyone, it’s just you) believes that I’m on the spectrum. I am regardless of what bad logic you employ. And I don’t have to “prove” it anymore than you do. If you’re on the spectrum, I’m fine with believing your claim. I know for a fact that I can’t diagnose someone based on a few comments on the internet. There are patterns that one can recognize, but no definitive determinant available. And, again, it doesn’t matter. Random people on the internet diagnosing you as autistic or allistic is useless. That you purport to be able to determine such, and that you even consider yourself an authority such that you ethically could diagnose someone, means you’re no one to heed. You’re obviously not a medical professional. If you were, you’d be highly unethical and should lose your license.
This is a non sequitur. Your personal experience isn’t the entirety of existence. You put far too much weight on your personal bias. Also, children wouldn’t be having this lengthy of a discussion on this topic, so I don’t know why you think it would be relevant. You’re diagnosing people over the internet and trying to gatekeep autism. Would your daughter’s classmates do that?
Re: Re: Re:14
Every accusation a confession.
Re: Re: Re:15
Except I’m literally not purporting to represent the entirety of the English-reading population. You do understand you can’t just use that phrase whenever you want. It has to actually make sense.
What you’re missing is that you think I’m someone else who you believe is a right wing asshole and that assumption runs your arguments off the rails because anything that doesn’t jibe with your assumption gets ignored. Confirmation bias is at play.
I am on the spectrum. I am a leftist. I am an adult well older than eight year old children. I do think your representation of people on the spectrum is inappropriate. It makes so much more sense that you think you’re defending children who aren’t even being attacked when you’re actually speaking for adults who are fully capable of defending themselves if they choose to perceive an attack. And that drives you to attack people on the spectrum against your own purported values. You have become the asshole attacking people on the spectrum you think you’re fighting.
Indeed, you are confessing here.
But you’re going to double down with the backfire effect instead taking a second to check yourself and realize you’re just fruitlessly wasting your time getting into petty arguments that make you look like a jackass.
Re: Re: Re:16
[Citation needed], since you’re so anti-autism rights and all.
Re: Re: Re:9
Perhaps that should have read “do not seek” since the person you replied to is doing that.
Re: Re: Re:8
Aren’t you The_Real_Autist, who made almost this exact argument when I asked you to use identity-first language for the whole Autistic community and to not use the term ‘non-verbal’ about autistic people who don’t speak? Well, the evidence I’m not “just one person trying to speak for all people with autism” is here and here, and information about non-speaking autistic people’s language preferences can be found here. I’ve also posted this info on the forum where you had a go at me for asking you to respect the language preferences of other autistic people, but you won’t be able to post a response as I banned you for discriminating against the wider Autistic community. Also, thanks to the Akismet system in place on the forum, you’re likely banned from a sizeable amount of other forums too. As you pointed out in your earlier comment here, pattern recognition is a thing.
Re: Re: Re:9
This makes so much sense now! You’ve been shadowboxing this whole time. I’m not who you think I am. All the weird assumptions were about someone else.
I’d never use autist as a noun. It’s not a defining word for me. I tend to use “on the spectrum” more than autistic personally. I’ve never been to those forums and I don’t care about your personal obsession.
Your pattern recognition isn’t as good as you think it is. There are going to be other people on the spectrum who have opinions on how we’re represented. Many of us are leftists too.
Re: Re: Re:9
This was a very revealing comment. I’m not this person. I’ve never been to the other websites you’ve referenced. You’ve been attributing things to me that belong to someone else, which means you’ve been using a false context to interpret my statements. Think about all the time you wasted making bad arguments here while thinking you knew who you were talking to.
Re: Re: Re:8
AC 1 (clearly a member of the Autistic community or one of its allies): “I would argue that the Onion is ableist toward autistic people…”
Translation: “In my sole opinion (speaking for myself), the Onion is ableist toward autistic people.”
AC 2: “You are pretending that you’re able to represent anyone who you can be offended on behalf of.”
Translation: “You don’t get to speak for me, allistic scum.”
Oh, wow! What a shitty take. Do you normally undiagnose people you disagree with, or just those you want to be especially hostile to? You know, my daughter is considered “severely” autistic, but she makes a far better advocate for her people than you do. She even persuaded me to stop “Walking for Autism” by bringing my attention to all the crappy things your bosses at Autism Speaks have done, and she’s not even nine years old yet.
Re: Re: Re:9
“Clearly” is doing a lot of work here. This hasn’t been proven. I’m not disputing it because it doesn’t matter, but you’re asserting facts not in evidence. This a major assumption.
They said, as you quoted, “toward autistic people,” not “towards me.” And this isn’t the first time they’ve brought up this argument in the comments. You’re either ignorant of the greater context or you’re being disingenuous. Either way you aren’t speaking from an informed perspective on the topic.
Wow. You are creating a blatant strawman here. I don’t use the word scum. I wouldn’t diagnose anyone as autistic or allistic based on a comment. And it doesn’t even matter whether they’re on the spectrum or not for my comment to be valid. I’m literally a person on the spectrum asserting that no one can speak for all of us. We’re individuals and we’re capable of speaking for ourselves. I don’t speak for all of us. Others will tell you the same.
Yeah, that completely made up version you spun is a shitty take. This makes your assertions of insincerity so much more hilarious. You’re a blatant hypocrite with this claim. You literally claimed I implied statements I never said and would never say from a perspective I don’t hold.
I don’t diagnose or undiagnose people. That’s literally you. This is funny. Look through all my comments. I have never asserted the diagnosis of anyone except myself and that was by a medical professional.
I’m not especially hostile. You’ve been reading hostility into comments that are just honest about what I perceive. You’ve been disingenuous and you don’t like getting called out. You take heavy offense when someone presents a different perspective.
By saying “her people,” you seem to be implying you’re not on the spectrum. So you actually are allistic and you’re telling someone who is on the spectrum that they’re not based on your expertise of dealing with an autistic minor. Wow. That’s fucked up.
My bosses? Why do you insist on asserting things you have no evidence for?
Re: Re: Re:10
Except that’s literally what you did in your first comment. Punch up, bigot!
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
I legit believe the GOP as it was pre-Trump will not survive him. They will either fall in line or be expunged. The GOP voter base is pretty fiercely against the kinda Bush-era uniparty at this point and four years is enough to lock that in. Most GOP congressmen are basically fossils anyways, they won’t last long.
I would personally fly down from Australia and vote for a third Trump term on the condition that he murders Mitch McConnell in broad daylight on the Senate floor.
Re: Re: Re:
“I would personally fly down from Australia and vote for a third Trump term on the condition that he murders Mitch McConnell in broad daylight on the Senate floor.”
Stay in fucking Australia, scumbag.
Re: Re: Re:2
Yes, I will stay in Australia with my free healthcare and state-guaranteed union benefits and laws that protect my job so that my employers can’t decide to fire me because they feel like it. That’s why I’m here.
Unironically if you guys knew how bad your healthcare and employment laws were, there’d be a Luigi Mangione incident every other day. Not even joking.
Re: Re: Re:3
News flash goatfucker is outback fucking goats!
Re: Re: Re:4
You know, Stone, I always found it really funny that when you first met me, your very first instinct was to tell me that you were thinking of intercourse with farm animals.
Re: Re: Re:5 How are you this stupid?
You still got the wrong guy. You fucking muppet.
Re: Re: Re:6
TBH, given how often Stephen himself has mixed up different individuals (whether genuinely or disingenuously, I don’t know), is it any wonder the troll you responded to has the apparent belief that Stephen has posted as an AC in order to attack himself as he may have done previously?
Re: Re: Re:7
TBH, given how you are just making random claims, is it any wonder you’re a swarm of gerbil feet pretending to be a cybernetic ostrich typing on a keyboard and saying human things?
We were just making stuff up right? That’s the whole schtick?
Re: Re: Re:3
Fair dinkum.
VB on me!
Re: Re: Re:
This all happened during the first Trump administration. It’s all MAGA all the time.
Re: Re: Re:
Please do. I would love for a non-Republican administration (or even a Republican administration that has to be seen to do the right thing) to deport you after locking you up for five years, and even public murders can be faked.
Re: Re:
Ultimately I think a lot is going to depend on whether he can successfully purge the military of anybody who isn’t a loyalist.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
You mean 12 years.
After Big Daddy Trump gracefully leaves office without assuming the dictatorial powers that would be rightly his, you’ll still have 8 years of President Vance!!
You degenerates seriously overplayed your hand and will lament for years and years your hatefulness and arrogance. Hah!!
Re: Re:
I don’t know if you noticed but even your own party hates his guts.
ZERO charisma
ZERO personality
ZERO good policy
ZERO respect for furniture’s consent.
Re: Re: Re: Not to piss on your joke at the end, there, but...
The GOP doesn’t seem to give much of a damn about ‘woke’ concepts like consent…
Re: Re: Re:2
Jesus Christ. I don’t even need to point out how awful this take is. I’ll just say is what the actual fuck is wrong with you?
Re: Re: Re:3
Yeah?
On May 9 2023 a jury weighed the evidence and found Trump liable for the sexual assault of E Jean Carroll.
Sure seems to me like the GOP didn’t give a fuck, or did I miss something.
Shall we go down the list and examine all the other creeps nobody on the right seems keen on kicking out for their behavior…?
Re: Re: Re:4
Yeah my apologies. I fucked up. I glossed over your comment and for some reason I thought that it was that Troll spammer saying “consent is a woke concept.” and didn’t think of the context of the comment. I retract what I said. I am sorry. You have my permission to list me as spam.
Re: Re: Re:5
No worries we good 👍
Re: Re: Re:3
*whoooooooooooosh!*
Re: Re: Re:4
Whooshing is such a useless comment. You’re not contributing or even being clever. It’s like a little kid who just says their favorite word repeatedly.
Re: Re: Re:5 doesn't always work but still
I like that around here people keep asking for more people-talk and less parrot-noises.
Re: Re: Re:5
The fact that AC can say so much with just one word says a lot about their ability to communicate.
The fact you completely missed what they were saying says a lot more about yours.
Re: Re: Re:6
Whoosh!
Re: Re: Huh.
“Hatefulness.”
People like me are hateful, says the person also giddily calling me a “degenerate.”
…Interesting…
Would you be willing to elaborate on that for me? I’m curious: who or what, exactly, is it you think I hate? How did you come to that conclusion?
Re: Re: Re:
It was not a conclusion, it was a bald statement of alternate facts!
Re: Re:
Bruh
The only people who like Vance are incels….
Ah, carry on then.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
No false bravado here, TD/MM minions! Trump is your President now and you’ve got a long, painful, demoralizing, soul-crushing 4+ years ahead of you!!
Re:
What makes you seek pleasure from the pain of others?
Re:
Even if you don’t understand how, rest assured, you do too.
Re:
How’s that price of eggs lookin’, pighead?
Re:
“No false bravado here,” lied the liar in a lying manner.
Man I sure love the future without freedom of speech, open internet, privacy, pornography, art, anything even remotely queer, anything non-rightwing..And of course whole categories of people having less rights than they should have.
It’s just fucking stupid. Especially if SCOTUS rules those AV loves constitutional. I’m not particularly faithful any politician would be bothered to try and roll those back later on anywhere in the world.
Grah, what a load of bullshit.
(FYI: No I’m not insinuating any of these things are guaranteed, but that so many doom-sounding scenarios are on the table in the first place anywhere in the world. The midterms can’t come soon enough.)
Re:
I’m waiting for the Leopards Eating People’s Faces party to find that you can’t recall a sitting president through an initiative petition.
Re: Re:
Shit like this makes me wish that “the 2024 election was rigged” conspiracy was true, cause that’d land his ass in prison before his term’s even gotten off the ground.
Re: Re: Re:
It didn’t in 2017, so why would it now?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
dear god I should not be typing comments past midnight. AV LOVES?? WHAT
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
are you gonna worry on every article
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
No? Are you gonna harass me on every article?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
No? Are you gonna harass me on every article? complaining about worry spam =/= harassment? what?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
it’s like your whole life is to not be productive and make everyone miserable
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
He has very good reason to worry. Fascism has come to Amerikkka.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
ok bro
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
and so instead of being productive and fight back your just here misery posting which helps fucking no one
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
please shut up with your spams of worry
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Stop telling people to ignore their feelings and pretend everything is OK. Everything is NOT OK.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
“Stop telling people to ignore their feelings and pretend everything is OK. Everything is NOT OK.” then fight back instead of spewing misery shit on a tech blog if you want good change
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
spaming misery posts will help no one bro as stephen has told you several fucking times now
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
The knee-jerk “shut up shut up shut up” nothings also help no one.
Bro.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
then we have the solution just leave the site for a few days maybe that will make everyone more productive
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
You’re making a lot of assumptions about how productive people are.
How about you get off your own ass instead of watching the comments of every article like a hawk.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
You’re making a lot of assumptions about how productive people are.
How about you get off your own ass instead of watching the comments of every article like a hawk. said the one who crys 30 times bro that’s not productive bro your just wasting time trying to defend doomposters instead of doing shit that is not productive bro
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
Politely shut up.
I’m going to keep telling you to shut up untill you do so. Enjoy.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7
you’re proving my point your wasting time you might as well flood the comment section at this point
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8
Incredibly ironic coming from you. Please shut it.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:9
wasting time i see
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Follow your own advice.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
follow your own too and stop wasting time defending people who bitch and moan and are not productive there the reason fascism will win
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
The Techdirtist values his ability to goon to videos produced by the sex trafficking industry above all else
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Wait, when did the Catholic Church start making porn?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
You misspelled Jews. I understand, easy mistake.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
No. No, I did not.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
No, you did.
Al Goldstein, the man who founded Screw magazine and normalized hardcore porn in the United States, was Jewish. Adam Glasser/Seymore Butts is Jewish and is responsible for something like over 100 famous porn films. Sam Roth, who helped legalize porn as protected speech in Roth v. United States, was Jewish. Soloman Friedman, an actual Jewish rabbi, ran Pornhub for a number of years (and I’m pretty sure he’s still CEO, but I’m not sure.)
Something I learned from a number of years being an adjunct for a history of religion class is that Judaism is actually way more sex positive than you would think. I could go on but a lot of people who work in porn or helped bring it to the US were/are Jewish. This isn’t antisemitic propaganda, this is literally just what has happened over the last 100 years or so.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Shoving words down my throat that didn’t first come from it won’t make your edgelord act (and your antisemitism) any less ridiculous and weird.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
You know, you would have been better making that response earlier. Doing so now only makes you look disingenuous.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
and they say me saying people are bitching and moaning are unproductive is bad
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Yup, all those Jewish Rabbi’s raping kids in the church. Oh wait…
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
I had no idea you considered yourself a Techdirtist.
t
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
DEI is working great in LA.
At least everyone knows the top 3 of the fire dept. are all lesbians. And if you don’t look like them, well, you shouldn’t have been in a burning building in the first place.
Re: Re: lmgtfy
One minute with Google and the LAFD website puts the lie to that. The Chief Fire Officer may be female, but that doesn’t make her a lesbian, and the rest of the top of the organisation is male.
https://lafd.org/about/organization
So, no, ‘everyone’ doesn’t know that at all.
Re: Re:
Even if you were correct about them all being lesbians, it wouldn’t matter.
You do understand it wouldn’t matter, right? I mean you made it sound like, in your head, we can’t have lesbian firefighters because they wouldn’t save non-lesbians from a fire.
Is this really how you think most people operate?
Is that how you operate?
Re: Re: Re:
What they’re implying is simple: Anyone who isn’t a straight white cisgender Christian male that is hired/brought on into any organization must only be there because they are a “diversity hire” and therefore don’t meet the standards of the role for which they were hired. In this particular case, they’re implying that a gay woman was hired by the LAFD because she ticks some boxes on a diversity quota and that she otherwise sucks at her job. Their position is ignorant for two reasons: (1) sexual orientation has no bearing on whether someone is good at their job, and (2) the LAFD was going to have trouble with those fires no matter who was in charge.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Gay women shouldn’t be firefighters and they definitely shouldn’t be police officers. It would be ok to have a few heterosexual female police officers working desk jobs who would be available to interview female victims of sexual violence, but otherwise–nope. Everyone knows this, which is why everyone also realizes the only reason there are lesbian firefighters and police is because standards were lowered and boxes were ticked.
Re: Re: Re:3
There’s something illustrative in the way you insist ‘everyone knows.’
I do not know why gay women shouldn’t be police or firefighters. Explain it to me.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Gay women shouldn’t be police or firefighters because they are biologically incapable of meeting the physical standards applied to males. They’re also, shrill, retдrded, disgusting and gross and no officer or fireman should ever have to worry about losing his life because he was partnered with a useless divers!ty hire.
Re: Re: Re:5
“Physical standards…”
You have met too few police officers, too few lesbians, or both.
I also find it adorable that the sort of person who seems most apt to cry about ‘cancelling’ and censorship self-censors. In what way, exactly, do you think lesbians are “retarded” and “disgusting?”
Why hate them?
Re: Re: Re:6
I don’t hate lesbians. They just shouldn’t be firefighters, law enforcement officers [though some working behind a desk would be OK], infantrymen, warrant officers, etc.
Re: Re: Re:5
So did the last lesbian you hit on beat you up, throw a drink in your face or just emasculate you verbally?
Re: Re: Re:5
I shouldn’t have to see your stupid opinion in public, yet here we are. Deal with it.
Re: Re: Re:5
Aw, someone’s upset that female firefighters and cops are more physically capable than him… We should fire a bunch of people from their jobs because his fragile little ego is just so sensitive!
Re: Re: Re:4
Everyone knows that “everyone knows” really means “this is bullshit I just made up.”
Re: Re: Re:3
I don’t. Please explain why LGBTQ people who meet every requirement to be a firefighter or police officer should not be allowed to do those jobs. Note that any answer along the lines of “because they’re queer” will not be accepted as a serious answer.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Females can’t meet male standards, which is why those standards are always reduced and corrupted to facilitate the entry of otherwise unqualified women into fields like law enforcement, public safety, combat arms, etc.
Re: Re: Re:5
Show me proof that the LAFD lowered any of its physical standards for the job specifically so women could be hired as firefighters. I’ll wait.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
Implementation of the IAFF’s CPAT was specifically done to replace more stringent and exacting testing that ruthlessly filtered unqualified females. CFFJAC’s own records show that women pass the CPAT at a much higher rate than the previous physical ability tests because standards were lowered.
Re: Re: Re:7
Let’s assume you’re not bullshitting here. (Linking to your proof from credible sources would’ve been a smart move.) What effect have those allegedly lower standards had on firefighting-related civilian injuries/fatalities? How do you know for sure that male firefighters wouldn’t have had trouble with preventing those same injuries/fatalities? And for what reason (other than anti-queer bigotry) should a gay person be prevented from doing the job if they meet all the same standards as a straight person?
Re: Re: Re:2
Read again:
That is a clear statement of belief that the top three of the fire department share the same racial prejudices as LEOs and will only bother to pull you out of a fire if you are the same ethnicity as them, which I have seen no evidence of recently.
Re: Re: Re:
‘Could you believe that?’: TV host blasts LAFD Deputy Chief’s bizarre comments
Listen to 23 seconds. From 40 to 1:03
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSQavcggvmg
She is not saving you. You shouldn’t have been there.
Re: Re: Re:2
Who’s “she”? The individual making those comments is (apparently) a deep in the closet trans person if they’re female.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Oh, boo-hoo, the commentariat is all up in arms again!
Guess what, snowflakes? Your whining doesn’t change the fact that Trump’s your prez for the next four glorious years. Cry harder, maybe your tears will wash away your delusions that your opinions matter.
Your ‘concerns’? More like comedy gold for us. Enjoy living under the reign of the man you love to hate, because he’s here to stay, and your keyboard warrior rants won’t change a thing. Keep those tears coming, they’re the best entertainment since reality TV!
Re:
For what reason does the pain of others amuse you?
Re:
Can you imagine being the little goblin whos only source of joy is posting on a website he hates. Must be a sad little life.
Re:
I love the viciousness of this self-own. You’re defending and cheering for people who at best consider you a useful idiot while you echo the propaganda you’ve been fed that only benefits them and not you, yet you seem to think your received “opinions” matter.
You’re a sports fan pretending you’re a player on your favorite team when they wouldn’t piss on you to put out a fire.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
So uhh, is Germany turning into Nazi Germany again this year?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
yawns
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Shut up and leave.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
waste more time bro
Re:
No, but neonazi Musk is trying…
> seems a little redundant
It’s a tautology.