I read the parent comment differently:

The corollary of not knowing when [non-neurotypicals are] offending people, is that they also don't know when they're receiving tolerance

Yeah not trying to imply the GP did. Just offering another perspective.

That happens to anything non-normative. I got that reaction on two things that I suggested:

* that people whose organs are harvested should receive some compensation in the way that other participants in the transaction do: https://web.archive.org/web/20240417004658/https://news.ycom...

After I complained enough people flagged the replies calling me a Nazi but before that they were the top ranked responses.

* I suggested that the franchise should be restricted and the majority of reactions were not considered and simply emotional outbursts https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46291336

This is the nature of being different: most people don’t bother with the rider; the elephant suffices.

> initial reaction is hard to hide and is profoundly impactful to the people who see it a million times

I can relate this very much, and I am "just" 100% blind. I believe what we are talking about is not "neurotypicals" vs "non-neurotypicals", it is really the way society treats anyone with a pertceived disability. We are, even though society tries to keep the mask on, outcasts, and we are regularily enough treated like that we learn on a deep level that we are just not part of the rest of society. Sure, there is a "spectrum" of how good a person with a disability might cope, but at the end of the day, if I throw myself into the masses and have random interactions, I always learn the same lesson: random strangers will keep treating me in a very uncomfortable way. Sure, many people try their best. Some even come across as creepy by trying so hard. But the statistics never changes. I will never feel like a "normal" person, they will make sure I never will.

> The default instinctual reaction of nearly everyone to someone who lets the mask slip and exhibits spectrum behaviours is somewhat like they would react to seeing a large spider. The knee jerk baked in emotional response is a mix of fear, disgust, and 'other'ing. OP isn't making some claim that neurotypicals are consciously intolerant. I would, however, make the claim that regardless of what actions people consciously take, this initial reaction is hard to hide and is profoundly impactful to the people who see it a million times.

Then these neurotypicals should stop their hypocrisis of preaching tolerance and considering themselves to be tolerant.

> reason was cost

Yeah, it was supposed to be replaced with a kinder/gentler system, but that never came. They shut down the support system completely with a "we'll figure out how to fix this later" and that never came.

I think the solution is pretty obvious, TBH. Pay people to take care of their family with disabilities. It's often a full time job to take care of someone with a severe disability. Some states do make allowances to pay out to family caregivers, but it's a convoluted system where you have to be employed by a private care agency which is ultimately reimbursed for the care. There's a pointless private business in the way just adding on admin fees.

But there desperately needs to be something in place for people without that support. Parents die/leave/are incarcerated and we really don't have any sort of system setup to handle that.

>No, the reason was to save tax money

no, it wasn't, it was SCOTUS decision O'Connor v. Donaldson

Except that those same people then complain about how many homeless people there are.

Reagan's destruction of the mental health system was really awful. The system needed improvement and more accountability, but we need it.

I had an adult step-brother too ill with schizophrenia to be cared for at home (he began making violent threats and stealing things, up to and including my mom's car), but under the current threshold for being compelled to take his medication. My mom (his step-mom; an attorney) spent years trying to find ways to get him help, but he bounced in and out of being homeless and ended up being murdered at about age 60 in a halfway house. Just a stupid, tragic waste of a life and all of the resources mis-allocated.

Sadly, it's just another example of how the US is penny-wise and pound-foolish when it comes to social services.

I think the problem is that non-divergent people really cannot comprehend an inability to perceive non-verbal communication. Nonverbal communication is like breathing, or eating - it's something that just works for them; they don't have to think about it. It's scary and weird to them when they meet people that can't do it.

Then there are those of us for whom social situations are a 3-billion-line case/esac statement.

  case situation in
    shesmiledandlaughedafterthejoke)
      shelikedthejoke()
    ;;
    shesmiledandlaughedafterthejokebutlookedsideways)
      shesboredanddidntlikethejoke()
    ;;
    thejokewasfunnyoncesoitmustbefunnyeverytimeeven200times)
      crashandburn()
    ;;
    etc)
    ;;
  esac

Somehow, I managed to get married. My wife helped me understand what I was missing - it was like gaining eyesight after never having it or even understanding eyesight was a thing people had.

Yes, many people lack empathy. That is no excuse for you (or me!) to learn and use empathy.

> But supposedly neurotypical people demonstrate what seems to me like a stunning lack of empathy (or more generally, ability to comprehend other worldviews) all the time.

IME religion facilities this phenomenon. In-group members (esp men) get forgiveness and freedom from consequences (perhaps conditioned on saying magic words). Whilst out-groups get "forgiveness" with extra consequences.

> But supposedly neurotypical people demonstrate what seems to me like a stunning lack of empathy (or more generally, ability to comprehend other worldviews) all the time. Especially when politics is involved.

Politics is about power fights: whose argument will convince the mass that in this case violence (laws -> state authority) is appropriate or not appropriate.

So even if the other person is able to comprehend other worldviews (which I would claim is actually often, though not always, the case), there exist very strong incentives to ignore these other world views in your actions when politics is involved.

Freakishly weirdly precise memory that doesn't work in other ways can be used to relayed relevant details to ChatGPT. I'll describe the weird face she made when I said that thing or the exact position of her body and the exact level of pressure with which she touched me on the arm and exactly where on my arm, for example.

As far as the framing, it's helped me realize that actually, hey, sometimes it is their fault and they are being unreasonable and I actually didn't do anything wrong, they just don't like me. I mean yeah, that's also a thing.

What would it even hallucinate? You wouldn't be asking it to cite a court case from 2004 that doesn't exist and it wouldn't invent people you didn't tell it about in the first place.

Not going to share a personal example, but eg plug "I bought my mom a vacuum cleaner for her birthday. Why did she get mad at me? she keeps complaining about the old one!" into ChatGPT vs find me any human willing to sit down and have that as an actual discussion with me as a human of any age. I'm just supposed to get it? I'm a fucking monster and unworthy of being loved because I need that explained to me? "You should just know!"

Fuck people.

> it's only one piece of a very complex problem

Right, who is disagreeing? Name someone. You've created a strawperson.

The knee-jerk anti-liberal responses (maybe that's not your motive, but it is for many) do enormous damage, by preventing good solutions from being implemented. The same thing happens with climate change, now vaccines, and other things. People are so focused on politics that they sacrifice lives and welfare of lots of people. There are good ideas from conservatives too - cutting off half the ideas is stupidity.

> People who have personally dealt with this know the hard truth that simply providing food and shelter isn't enough to stop a significant portion of people ending up in the streets.

In fact, the evidence and advocacy comes from people who have personally dealth with it, and providing housing does result in housing for a significant portion of people.

People need more than housing and that's where it becomes especially complex.

Nomadic people have homes and possessions; they bring the homes with them. They don't live out in the open with nothing like unhoused people are compelled to do.

There are digital nomads too - they usually have money and live in rented places, but they have shelter.